Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?

So, introduce these as symbols to be specific C identifier to match.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
---

based on: next-20220404
Changes since V1:

* Switch from identifier to more specific symbol

V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220404215926.14811-1-nm@ti.com/

 scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
index df00d6619b06..d33732f35710 100644
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
@@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ identifier llseek_f;
 
 @ has_no_llseek @
 identifier fops0.fops;
+symbol no_llseek;
 @@
   struct file_operations fops = {
     .llseek = no_llseek,
@@ -136,6 +137,7 @@ identifier fops0.fops;
 
 @ has_noop_llseek @
 identifier fops0.fops;
+symbol noop_llseek;
 @@
   struct file_operations fops = {
     .llseek = noop_llseek,
@@ -216,6 +218,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
 
 @ report_rw depends on report @
 identifier fops_rw.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
 position p1;
 @@
   openfunc(...) {
@@ -283,6 +286,7 @@ identifier stream_reader.readstream;
 
 @ report_r depends on report @
 identifier fops_r.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
 position p1;
 @@
   openfunc(...) {
@@ -331,6 +335,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
 
 @ report_w depends on report @
 identifier fops_w.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
 position p1;
 @@
   openfunc(...) {
-- 
2.31.1