Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Knut Omang]

On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 13:03 +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Knut,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Jani Nikula  
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 17:50 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
> >>> > Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
> >>> > checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
> >>> > the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
> >>> > by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.
> 
> 
> 
> >>> > --- /dev/null
> >>> > +++ b/scripts/runchecks
> >>> > @@ -0,0 +1,734 @@
> >>> > +#!/usr/bin/python
> >>> > +
> >>> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 
> Thank you for using an SPDX tag here   .
> 
> 
> 
> >>> > +#
> >>> > +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>> > +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
> >>> > +# as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>> > +
> 
> but then please DRY: do not add this extra legalese which is redundant.

Ah, I see - just trying to be compliant in all dimensions
 - will fix,

Thanks,
Knut
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Knut,

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Jani Nikula  wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 17:50 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
>>> > Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
>>> > checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
>>> > the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
>>> > by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.



>>> > --- /dev/null
>>> > +++ b/scripts/runchecks
>>> > @@ -0,0 +1,734 @@
>>> > +#!/usr/bin/python
>>> > +
>>> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

Thank you for using an SPDX tag here   .



>>> > +#
>>> > +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> > +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>>> > +# as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> > +

but then please DRY: do not add this extra legalese which is redundant.

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:41:41 +0100
Knut Omang  escreveu:

> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 16:08 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100
> > Knut Omang  escreveu:
> >   
> > > > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> > > > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> > > > arbitrary checkers. 
> > > 
> > > The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
> > > 
> > > is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
> > > is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
> > > to be a checkpatch only solution.
> > >   
> > > > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> > > > a complete replacement? Or what?
> > > 
> > > It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
> > >   
> > > > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> > > > help text.
> > > 
> > > I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I 
> > > split the 
> > > arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
> > > 
> > > It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
> > > anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today  
> > 
> > I do. Here, I use:
> > 
> > $ make ARCH=i386  CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 
> > W=1
> > CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media
> > 
> > Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both
> > smatch and sparse:
> > 
> > #!/bin/bash
> > /devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@  
> 
> I suppose you here refer to this:
> https://blogs.oracle.com/linuxkernel/smatch-static-analysis-tool-overview,-by-dan-carpenter
> 
> Good idea! I'll have a look at how that plays with this.

Yes.

> 
> > /devel/sparse/sparse $@
> > 
> > So, I'm not sure why we need something else.   
> 
> The core functionality is the selective suppression logic and output 
> unification
> which makes checking with automated build tools more flexible and 
> applicable right away (not when every warning from every checker is fixed...)

If the idea is to use it only/mostly with automated build tools, then
the better would be to call it only when explicitly requested, e. g.
something like C=3, in order to avoid breaking the usecase where one
would run its own script.

On my case, I use C=1 CHECK=compile_checks as part as my usual patch
handling. For every patch I apply on media, I call make again, to be
sure that no warning/building errors were added, not only with gcc
but also with smatch and sparse. 

> 
> > That said, I didn't look
> > on its code, but looking on its diffstat:
> > 
> >  Makefile   |  23 +-
> >  scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
> >  scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
> >  scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
> >  scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-
> > 
> > Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker
> > seems too much!  
> 
> Sure, if that was the case I would be the first to agree :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Knut
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Mauro  



Thanks,
Mauro
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Knut Omang]

On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 16:08 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100
> Knut Omang  escreveu:
> 
> > > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> > > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> > > arbitrary checkers.   
> > 
> > The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
> > 
> > is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
> > is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
> > to be a checkpatch only solution.
> > 
> > > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> > > a complete replacement? Or what?  
> > 
> > It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
> > 
> > > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> > > help text.  
> > 
> > I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I 
> > split the 
> > arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
> > 
> > It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
> > anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today
> 
> I do. Here, I use:
> 
> $ make ARCH=i386  CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 
> W=1
> CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media
> 
> Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both
> smatch and sparse:
> 
>   #!/bin/bash
>   /devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@

I suppose you here refer to this:
https://blogs.oracle.com/linuxkernel/smatch-static-analysis-tool-overview,-by-dan-carpenter

Good idea! I'll have a look at how that plays with this.

>   /devel/sparse/sparse $@
> 
> So, I'm not sure why we need something else. 

The core functionality is the selective suppression logic and output unification
which makes checking with automated build tools more flexible and 
applicable right away (not when every warning from every checker is fixed...)

> That said, I didn't look
> on its code, but looking on its diffstat:
> 
>  Makefile   |  23 +-
>  scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
>  scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
>  scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
>  scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-
> 
> Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker
> seems too much!

Sure, if that was the case I would be the first to agree :-)

Thanks,
Knut

> Thanks,
> Mauro
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 17:50 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
>> > Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
>> > checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
>> > the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
>> > by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.
>> >
>> > scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality:
>> >
>> > * Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual
>> >   checks on a per file or per subsystem basis.
>> > * Unifies output and suppression input from different tools
>> >   by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the
>> >   underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types".
>> > * Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools
>> >   for each file.
>> >
>> > In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced
>> > by setup for runchecks.
>> >
>> > This version of runchecks together with a "global" configuration
>> > file in "scripts/runchecks.cfg" supports sparse, checkpatch, and checkdoc,
>> > a trivial abstraction above a call to 'kernel-doc -none'.
>> > It also supports forwarding calls to coccicheck for coccinelle support
>> > but this is not quite as worked through as the three other checkers,
>> > mainly because of lack of error data as all checks pass by default
>> > right now.
>> >
>> > The code is designed to be easily extensible to support more checkers
>> > as they emerge, and some generic checker support is even available
>> > just via simple additions to "scripts/runchecks.cfg".
>> >
>> > The runchecks program unifies configuration, processing
>> > and output for multiple checker tools to make them
>> > all run as part of the C=1 or C=2 option to make.
>> >
>> > Currently with full support and unified behaviour for
>> > sparse: sparse
>> > checkpatch: scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> > checkdoc:   kernel-doc -none
>> >
>> > In principle supported but not unified in output(yet):
>> > coccinelle: scripts/coccicheck
>> >
>> > Introduces a new documentation section titled
>> > "Makefile support for running checkers"
>> >
>> > Also updates documentation for the make C= option
>> > in some other doc files, as the behaviour has
>> > been changed to be less sparse specific and more
>> > generic. The coccinelle documentation also had the
>> > behaviour of C=1 and C=2 swapped.
>> 
>> I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
>> nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
>> arbitrary checkers. 
>
> The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
>
> is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
> is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
> to be a checkpatch only solution.
>
>> How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
>> a complete replacement? Or what?
>
> It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
>
>> 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
>> help text.
>
> I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I 
> split the 
> arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
>
> It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
> anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today, if not, 
> it could either be removed or simply replace by an expansion into a 
> '--run:$CHECK'
> argument to runchecks 
>
> Then runchecks' implicit method of declaring 
>
> checker  
>
> in scripts/runchecks.cfg could be used for people with checkers that
> need no further input/output adaptation.
>
> Further suggestions appreciated on this matter.

FWIW, I'd think it would be sufficient the documentation ('make help'
and your runchecks.rst et al) gets updated to reflect the changes to
$CHECK. But up to whoever is the maintainer here.

>
>> > Signed-off-by: Knut Omang 
>> > Reviewed-by: Håkon Bugge 
>> > Reviewed-by: Åsmund Østvold 
>> > Reviewed-by: John Haxby 
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst |  12 +-
>> >  Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst  |   1 +-
>> >  Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst  | 215 -
>> >  Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst |  30 +-
>> >  Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt|   9 +-
>> >  Makefile   |  23 +-
>> >  scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
>> >  scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
>> >  scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
>> >  scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-
>> 
>> Please get rid of runchecks_help.txt and use the usual python mechanisms
>> to specify and parse command line 

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Markus Heiser]

> Am 05.01.2018 um 15:30 schrieb Jani Nikula :
> 
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 17:50 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:

[...]

>> Hmm - I have been burnt by the use of unstable interfaces in Python before,
>> when I needed it to work on a (Linux) system with Python v.2.6.x only
>> - argparse was introduced in v.2.7. and alternative choices are not 
>> at all clear to me, see for instance:
>> 
>>  https://dmerej.info/blog/post/docopt-v-argparse/
>> 
>> If this program was part of a "standalone" python project with a well 
>> defined python
>> environment, I would probably have used argparse, which I have used in other 
>> projects.
>> 
>> In fact I hesitated even to use python for this, because of fear of 
>> versioning issues..
>> When I was tempted anyway, and after looking at the existing examples in 
>> scripts/ 
>> ruling out python v.3.x, it felt safer to stay with the bare minimum of 
>> module 
>> features for this simple logic.
>> 
>> I do feel confident that the benefits of python for this outweighs the 
>> drawbacks
>> compared to my initial shell script implementation, or using perl or even C.
>> 
>> Further advice on this appreciated,
> 
> Again, I can only offer my opinion of requiring Python v2.7 and using
> argparse, but it doesn't carry much weight. Up to the kbuild
> maintainers.

FYI: Py2.6 support has ended and Py2 expected to be end in 2020, the
countdown is running ;)

  https://pythonclock.org/

If you wan't a command-line parser which is "builtin" use argparse,
this is what I do mostly. If you are able to use requirements from
outside use click [1]. For more infos read e.g. [2]. Docopt [3] has
its charm but I would prefer the decorators from click.

[1] http://click.pocoo.org/5/
[2] 
https://realpython.com/blog/python/comparing-python-command-line-parsing-libraries-argparse-docopt-click/
[3] https://github.com/docopt

-- Markus --
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Knut Omang]

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 17:50 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
> > Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
> > checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
> > the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
> > by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.
> >
> > scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality:
> >
> > * Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual
> >   checks on a per file or per subsystem basis.
> > * Unifies output and suppression input from different tools
> >   by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the
> >   underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types".
> > * Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools
> >   for each file.
> >
> > In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced
> > by setup for runchecks.
> >
> > This version of runchecks together with a "global" configuration
> > file in "scripts/runchecks.cfg" supports sparse, checkpatch, and checkdoc,
> > a trivial abstraction above a call to 'kernel-doc -none'.
> > It also supports forwarding calls to coccicheck for coccinelle support
> > but this is not quite as worked through as the three other checkers,
> > mainly because of lack of error data as all checks pass by default
> > right now.
> >
> > The code is designed to be easily extensible to support more checkers
> > as they emerge, and some generic checker support is even available
> > just via simple additions to "scripts/runchecks.cfg".
> >
> > The runchecks program unifies configuration, processing
> > and output for multiple checker tools to make them
> > all run as part of the C=1 or C=2 option to make.
> >
> > Currently with full support and unified behaviour for
> > sparse: sparse
> > checkpatch: scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > checkdoc:   kernel-doc -none
> >
> > In principle supported but not unified in output(yet):
> > coccinelle: scripts/coccicheck
> >
> > Introduces a new documentation section titled
> > "Makefile support for running checkers"
> >
> > Also updates documentation for the make C= option
> > in some other doc files, as the behaviour has
> > been changed to be less sparse specific and more
> > generic. The coccinelle documentation also had the
> > behaviour of C=1 and C=2 swapped.
> 
> I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> arbitrary checkers. 

The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638

is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
to be a checkpatch only solution.

> How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> a complete replacement? Or what?

It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.

> 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> help text.

I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I split 
the 
arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.

It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today, if not, 
it could either be removed or simply replace by an expansion into a 
'--run:$CHECK'
argument to runchecks 

Then runchecks' implicit method of declaring 

checker  

in scripts/runchecks.cfg could be used for people with checkers that
need no further input/output adaptation.

Further suggestions appreciated on this matter.

> > Signed-off-by: Knut Omang 
> > Reviewed-by: Håkon Bugge 
> > Reviewed-by: Åsmund Østvold 
> > Reviewed-by: John Haxby 
> > ---
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst |  12 +-
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst  |   1 +-
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst  | 215 -
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst |  30 +-
> >  Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt|   9 +-
> >  Makefile   |  23 +-
> >  scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
> >  scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
> >  scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
> >  scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-
> 
> Please get rid of runchecks_help.txt and use the usual python mechanisms
> to specify and parse command line options, with their help texts,
> including automated --help output. This keeps the implementation and the
> help together, with hopes they'll actually stay in sync. Please don't
> hand roll argument parsers in python.

Hmm - I have been burnt by the use of unstable interfaces in Python before,
when I needed it to work on a (Linux) system with Python v.2.6.x only
- argparse was 

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Knut Omang  wrote:
> Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
> checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
> the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
> by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.
>
> scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality:
>
> * Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual
>   checks on a per file or per subsystem basis.
> * Unifies output and suppression input from different tools
>   by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the
>   underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types".
> * Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools
>   for each file.
>
> In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced
> by setup for runchecks.
>
> This version of runchecks together with a "global" configuration
> file in "scripts/runchecks.cfg" supports sparse, checkpatch, and checkdoc,
> a trivial abstraction above a call to 'kernel-doc -none'.
> It also supports forwarding calls to coccicheck for coccinelle support
> but this is not quite as worked through as the three other checkers,
> mainly because of lack of error data as all checks pass by default
> right now.
>
> The code is designed to be easily extensible to support more checkers
> as they emerge, and some generic checker support is even available
> just via simple additions to "scripts/runchecks.cfg".
>
> The runchecks program unifies configuration, processing
> and output for multiple checker tools to make them
> all run as part of the C=1 or C=2 option to make.
>
> Currently with full support and unified behaviour for
> sparse: sparse
> checkpatch: scripts/checkpatch.pl
> checkdoc:   kernel-doc -none
>
> In principle supported but not unified in output(yet):
> coccinelle: scripts/coccicheck
>
> Introduces a new documentation section titled
> "Makefile support for running checkers"
>
> Also updates documentation for the make C= option
> in some other doc files, as the behaviour has
> been changed to be less sparse specific and more
> generic. The coccinelle documentation also had the
> behaviour of C=1 and C=2 swapped.

I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
arbitrary checkers. How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
a complete replacement? Or what?

'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
help text.

> Signed-off-by: Knut Omang 
> Reviewed-by: Håkon Bugge 
> Reviewed-by: Åsmund Østvold 
> Reviewed-by: John Haxby 
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst |  12 +-
>  Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst  |   1 +-
>  Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst  | 215 -
>  Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst |  30 +-
>  Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt|   9 +-
>  Makefile   |  23 +-
>  scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
>  scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
>  scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
>  scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-

Please get rid of runchecks_help.txt and use the usual python mechanisms
to specify and parse command line options, with their help texts,
including automated --help output. This keeps the implementation and the
help together, with hopes they'll actually stay in sync. Please don't
hand roll argument parsers in python.

BR,
Jani.

>  10 files changed, 1114 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst
>  create mode 100755 scripts/runchecks
>  create mode 100644 scripts/runchecks.cfg
>  create mode 100644 scripts/runchecks_help.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst 
> b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> index 94f41c2..c98cc44 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> @@ -157,17 +157,19 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wireless/ one may 
> write::
>  
>  make coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/
>  
> -To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
> -following command may be used::
> +To apply Coccinelle as the only checker on a file basis,
> +instead of a directory basis, the following command may be used::
>  
> -make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +make C=2 CF="--run:coccicheck"
>  
> -To check only newly edited code, use the value 2 for the C flag, i.e.::
> +To check only newly edited code, use the value 1 for the C flag, i.e.::
>  
> -make C=2 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +make C=1 CF="--run:coccicheck"
>  
>  In these modes, which works on a file basis, there is no information
>  about semantic patches displayed, and no commit message proposed.
> +For 

[Cocci] [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1, 2} to support multiple checkers

[Knut Omang]

Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.

scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality:

* Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual
  checks on a per file or per subsystem basis.
* Unifies output and suppression input from different tools
  by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the
  underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types".
* Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools
  for each file.

In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced
by setup for runchecks.

This version of runchecks together with a "global" configuration
file in "scripts/runchecks.cfg" supports sparse, checkpatch, and checkdoc,
a trivial abstraction above a call to 'kernel-doc -none'.
It also supports forwarding calls to coccicheck for coccinelle support
but this is not quite as worked through as the three other checkers,
mainly because of lack of error data as all checks pass by default
right now.

The code is designed to be easily extensible to support more checkers
as they emerge, and some generic checker support is even available
just via simple additions to "scripts/runchecks.cfg".

The runchecks program unifies configuration, processing
and output for multiple checker tools to make them
all run as part of the C=1 or C=2 option to make.

Currently with full support and unified behaviour for
sparse: sparse
checkpatch: scripts/checkpatch.pl
checkdoc:   kernel-doc -none

In principle supported but not unified in output(yet):
coccinelle: scripts/coccicheck

Introduces a new documentation section titled
"Makefile support for running checkers"

Also updates documentation for the make C= option
in some other doc files, as the behaviour has
been changed to be less sparse specific and more
generic. The coccinelle documentation also had the
behaviour of C=1 and C=2 swapped.

Signed-off-by: Knut Omang 
Reviewed-by: Håkon Bugge 
Reviewed-by: Åsmund Østvold 
Reviewed-by: John Haxby 
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst |  12 +-
 Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst  |   1 +-
 Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst  | 215 -
 Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst |  30 +-
 Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt|   9 +-
 Makefile   |  23 +-
 scripts/Makefile.build |   4 +-
 scripts/runchecks  | 734 ++-
 scripts/runchecks.cfg  |  63 ++-
 scripts/runchecks_help.txt |  43 ++-
 10 files changed, 1114 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst
 create mode 100755 scripts/runchecks
 create mode 100644 scripts/runchecks.cfg
 create mode 100644 scripts/runchecks_help.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst 
b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
index 94f41c2..c98cc44 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
@@ -157,17 +157,19 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wireless/ one may 
write::
 
 make coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/
 
-To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
-following command may be used::
+To apply Coccinelle as the only checker on a file basis,
+instead of a directory basis, the following command may be used::
 
-make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
+make C=2 CF="--run:coccicheck"
 
-To check only newly edited code, use the value 2 for the C flag, i.e.::
+To check only newly edited code, use the value 1 for the C flag, i.e.::
 
-make C=2 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
+make C=1 CF="--run:coccicheck"
 
 In these modes, which works on a file basis, there is no information
 about semantic patches displayed, and no commit message proposed.
+For more information about options in this calling mode, see
+Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst .
 
 This runs every semantic patch in scripts/coccinelle by default. The
 COCCI variable may additionally be used to only apply a single
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst 
b/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
index e313925..cb4506d 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ whole; patches welcome!
 
coccinelle
sparse
+   runchecks
kcov
gcov
kasan
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst 
b/Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000..1a43c05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/runchecks.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+.. Copyright 2017 Knut Omang 
+
+Makefile support for running checkers
+=
+
+Tools like sparse,