On 8/21/25 17:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 21.08.2025 16:13, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >> On 8/21/25 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 20.08.2025 09:17, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/monitored.ecl >>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/monitored.ecl >>>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ >>>> -enable=MC3A2.R10.2 >>>> -enable=MC3A2.R11.1 >>>> -enable=MC3A2.R11.2 >>>> +-enable=MC3A2.R11.3 >>> >>> While the description mentions this change, it doesn't say why (e.g. "no >>> violations left" or "only this and that violation left" or some such). >> ARM: 813V -> 16V >> X86: 1422V -> 1035V >> >> Looks OK for ARM (to be added in the monitoring list), but X86... >> Anyway the number of reported errors has no side effect. > > Does it not, i.e. not even on the time it takes Eclair to do a full run?
Yes, scan time depends on number of enabled rules. But I don't know the time values. Dmytro. > >> Jan, decision up to you (include into monitored.ecl or not). > > For x86 I think the count is still too high. And no, it's not solely my > decision. > > Jan
