Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:33:12 -0500 | From | Greg Dietsche <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir is processed |
| |
On 06/08/2011 02:10 PM, Nicolas Palix wrote: > I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in > that case we should > also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ? > > I decided to skip doing this in V2 of the patch. I did a very quick test and cocci didn't seem to like two -I flags on one command line. > The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like > -include_headers or -all_includes). > Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files. > So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think > it is thus better > to be "exhaustive" in that case. > > Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ? >
Greg
| |