Re: [PATCH] scripts: add_namespace: Fix coccicheck failed
Hi YueHaibing!
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:44:56PM +0800, YueHaibing wrote:
Now all scripts in scripts/coccinelle to be automatically called
by coccicheck. However new adding add_namespace.cocci does not
support report mode, which make coccicheck failed.
This add "virtual report" to make the coccicheck go ahead smoothly.
Fixes: eb8305aecb95 ("scripts: Coccinelle script for namespace dependencies.")
Acked-by: Julia Lawall
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing
Thanks for fixing this!
Acked-by: Matthias Maennich
Cheers,
Matthias
---
scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
index c832bb6445a8..99e93a6c2e24 100644
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
/// add a missing namespace tag to a module source file.
///
+virtual report
+
@has_ns_import@
declarer name MODULE_IMPORT_NS;
identifier virtual.ns;
--
2.20.1
Re: [Cocci] [RFC] scripts: Fix coccicheck failed
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 07:34:49AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Would you like to increase your software development attention for > >> efficient system configuration on this issue? > > > > No. > > Thanks for this information. > > I am still curious if other contributors will care more for this aspect. No. Please stop. greg k-h
Re: [Cocci] scripts: add_namespace: Fix coccicheck failed
>> I would find a commit subject like “scripts: add_namespace: >> Add support for the default coccicheck operation mode” more appropriate >> (if this software development will be clarified further in the shown >> direction >> at all). > > Please let this go. This will not happen for a while. > Please stop criticizing the English of others. I am occasionally trying to provide some code review. Chances for further improvements will eventually be lost, if you do not get informed about corresponding update candidates. > The message is understandable, and even more informative than what you > propose. I would appreciate the selection of a better wording also in this case. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] scripts: add_namespace: Fix coccicheck failed
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Now all scripts in scripts/coccinelle to be automatically called
> > by coccicheck. However new adding add_namespace.cocci does not
> > support report mode, which make coccicheck failed.
> > This add "virtual report" to make the coccicheck go ahead smoothly.
>
> I find that this change description needs improvements and corrections.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=43b815c6a8e7dbccb5b8bd9c4b099c24bc22d135#n151
>
> I would find a commit subject like “scripts: add_namespace:
> Add support for the default coccicheck operation mode” more appropriate
> (if this software development will be clarified further in the shown direction
> at all).
Please let this go. Please stop criticizing the English of others. The
message is understandable, and even more informative than what you
propose.
julia
>
>
> > Fixes: eb8305aecb95 ("scripts: Coccinelle script for namespace
> > dependencies.")
>
> I got the impression that a sub-optimal solution approach would be chosen
> here.
> The automatic script execution is requested despite of the fact
> that the input parameter “name space” (SmPL identifier “virtual.ns”)
> will be required.
>
> I am curious under which circumstances an other transformation
> can become more attractive.
> [PATCH 0/2] Coccinelle: Extend directory hierarchy
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/d8c97f0a-6ce2-0f5a-74a9-63366c17f...@web.de/
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=412494
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/2/60
>
>
> > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
> > @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
> > /// add a missing namespace tag to a module source file.
> > ///
> >
> > +virtual report
> > +
> > @has_ns_import@
>
> If you would insist on the complete support for the operation mode “report”
> of the tool “coccicheck”, I would eventually expect that another SmPL rule
> will provide a helpful message instead of immediately exiting after
> the script variable “ns” was defined.
> Are you going to take any additional software design options better
> into account?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [PATCH] scripts: add_namespace: Fix coccicheck failed
> Now all scripts in scripts/coccinelle to be automatically called
> by coccicheck. However new adding add_namespace.cocci does not
> support report mode, which make coccicheck failed.
> This add "virtual report" to make the coccicheck go ahead smoothly.
I find that this change description needs improvements and corrections.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=43b815c6a8e7dbccb5b8bd9c4b099c24bc22d135#n151
I would find a commit subject like “scripts: add_namespace:
Add support for the default coccicheck operation mode” more appropriate
(if this software development will be clarified further in the shown direction
at all).
> Fixes: eb8305aecb95 ("scripts: Coccinelle script for namespace dependencies.")
I got the impression that a sub-optimal solution approach would be chosen here.
The automatic script execution is requested despite of the fact
that the input parameter “name space” (SmPL identifier “virtual.ns”)
will be required.
I am curious under which circumstances an other transformation
can become more attractive.
[PATCH 0/2] Coccinelle: Extend directory hierarchy
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/d8c97f0a-6ce2-0f5a-74a9-63366c17f...@web.de/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=412494
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/2/60
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci
> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
> /// add a missing namespace tag to a module source file.
> ///
>
> +virtual report
> +
> @has_ns_import@
If you would insist on the complete support for the operation mode “report”
of the tool “coccicheck”, I would eventually expect that another SmPL rule
will provide a helpful message instead of immediately exiting after
the script variable “ns” was defined.
Are you going to take any additional software design options better
into account?
Regards,
Markus
