>> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> make J=1 C=1
>> CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' MODE=context
>> COCCI=~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched/scripts/coccinelle/null/show_pointer_usage_before_null_check-20200701.cocci
>> drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3_gadget.o
>
> This is not what is intended. What
>>> Julia, Markus- can you tell me how to run coccicheck on one source file?
>>
>> You can choose between two methods.
>>
>> * Use the documented build target with appropriate parameters.
>> (How many Linux software modules do consist of only a single source file?)
>
> This is a useless piece of
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:52:58AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 7/1/20 6:32 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >>> How do you think about to use the following command variant
> > >>> for the adjustment of the software documentation?
> > >>>
> > >>> +
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:52:58AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/1/20 6:32 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> How do you think about to use the following command variant
> >>> for the adjustment of the software documentation?
> >>>
> >>> +make C=1 CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' 'path/to/file.o'
>
>> Did you test the specified make command for the display
>> of expected data processing results?
>
> Markus, if something doesn't work, just say so, OK?
Did a previous information fit to this expectation already?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/c2c1dec0-2bd1-b0e2-1aa4-38d0e954d...@web.de/
On 7/1/20 10:32 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> None of that has anything to do with the current patch.
>
> Did you test the specified make command for the display
> of expected data processing results?
Markus, if something doesn't work, just say so, OK?
Don't go all obtuse on us.
> How much do
> None of that has anything to do with the current patch.
Did you test the specified make command for the display
of expected data processing results?
How much do you distinguish desired effects according to
the specification of file extensions for such build commands?
Regards,
Markus
>> - add "path/to/file.c" when using Coccinelle to check a single file
…
> Acked-by: Julia Lawall
Do you really acknowledge that the specified make command is working
in the expected way?
Would you like to mention any source file then for which known
source code analysis (or transformation)
>> Do we stumble on a target conflict according to a specific technical detail?
>>
>> How do you think about to compare source code analysis results
>> from programs like “sparse” and “spatch” (by the mentioned make command)?
>
> None of that has anything to do with the current patch.
Both
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap
>
> Fix various typos etc. in dev-tools/coccinelle.rst:
>
> - punctuation, grammar, wording
> - add "path/to/file.c" when using Coccinelle to check a single file
>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap
Acked-by: Julia Lawall
Thanks
>> I got an other software development impression.
>
> Markus, the patch is fine, we can end this here.
Do you care to improve the software documentation any further
according to the specification file extensions for build commands?
Regards,
Markus
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:15:07 +0200
Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch
> >> review?
> >
> > I am satisfied with the current patch.
>
> I got an other software development impression.
Markus, the patch is fine, we can end this here.
On 7/1/20 8:15 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review?
>>
>> I am satisfied with the current patch.
>
> I got an other software development impression.
>
>
>> No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum,
>> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review?
>
> I am satisfied with the current patch.
I got an other software development impression.
> No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum,
> but I'm not trying to do that.
Do we stumble on a
>> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review?
>
> I am satisfied with the current patch.
I got an other software development impression.
> No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum,
> but I'm not trying to do that.
Do we stumble on a
On 7/1/20 8:02 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> How do you think about to use the following command variant
> for the adjustment of the software documentation?
>
> +make C=1 CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' 'path/to/file.o'
I don't understand the reason for that change...
>>
>>
How do you think about to use the following command variant
for the adjustment of the software documentation?
+make C=1 CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' 'path/to/file.o'
>>>
>>> I don't understand the reason for that change...
>
> IOW, your "patch" needs justification and/or
On 7/1/20 6:32 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> We might stumble on different interpretations according to the wording
> “file basis”.
> Do you find a message like “make: Nothing to be done for
> 'path/to/file.c'.” interesting then?
>
> * Would you like to add any links for
We might stumble on different interpretations according to the wording
“file basis”.
Do you find a message like “make: Nothing to be done for
'path/to/file.c'.” interesting then?
* Would you like to add any links for information around the support for
source
On 7/1/20 4:56 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> …
+++ linux-next-20200629/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
>>> …
@@ -177,13 +177,13 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wirele
To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
following command may be
>> …
>>> +++ linux-next-20200629/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
>> …
>> > @@ -177,13 +177,13 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wirele
>>> To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
>>> following command may be used::
>>>
>>> -make C=1
On 6/30/20 5:23 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
>> +++ linux-next-20200629/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> …> @@ -177,13 +177,13 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wirele
>> To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
>> following command may be used::
>>
>> -
…
> +++ linux-next-20200629/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
…> @@ -177,13 +177,13 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wirele
> To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
> following command may be used::
>
> -make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +make
> @@ -177,13 +177,13 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wirele
> To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
> following command may be used::
>
> -make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck" path/to/file.c
Can such information
From: Randy Dunlap
Fix various typos etc. in dev-tools/coccinelle.rst:
- punctuation, grammar, wording
- add "path/to/file.c" when using Coccinelle to check a single file
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Julia Lawall
Cc: Gilles Muller
Cc: Nicolas Palix
Cc: Michal Marek
Cc:
25 matches
Mail list logo
