Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:10:00 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir is processed | From | Nicolas Palix <> |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@cuw.edu> wrote: > > > On 06/07/2011 10:29 PM, Greg Dietsche wrote: >> >> Examples: >> make coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/ >> make coccicheck SUBDIRS=drivers/net/wireless/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche<Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu> >> --- >> scripts/coccicheck | 13 +++++++++++-- >> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/coccicheck b/scripts/coccicheck >> index 1bb1a1b..6f08efa 100755 >> --- a/scripts/coccicheck >> +++ b/scripts/coccicheck >> @@ -10,13 +10,22 @@ if [ "$C" = "1" -o "$C" = "2" ]; then >> # OPTIONS=$* >> >> # Workaround for Coccinelle< 0.2.3 >> - FLAGS="-I $srctree/include -very_quiet" >> + if [ "$KBUILD_EXTMOD" = "" ] ; then >> + FLAGS="-I $srctree/include -very_quiet" >> + else >> + echo 'M= is only supported for Coccinelle>= 0.2.3' >> + exit 1 >> + fi >> shift $(( $# - 1 )) >> OPTIONS=$1 >> else >> ONLINE=0 >> FLAGS="-very_quiet" >> - OPTIONS="-dir $srctree" >> + if [ "$KBUILD_EXTMOD" = "" ] ; then >> + OPTIONS="-dir $srctree" >> + else >> + OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD" >> > > So far I've found one bug after reading Nicolas's comments on the other > thread. In order to have the diffs print file names correctly, I definitely > need to update my patch to do this: > > + OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD -patch $srctree" > > Also, do I need to tell cocci where the includes are? Based on my somewhat > limited knowledge and testing, I'm not sure... but so far the tests seem to > work without it. If we really do need to tell it about the includes, then > the line should read: > > + OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD -patch $srctree -I $srctree/include"
I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in that case we should also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ?
The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like -include_headers or -all_includes). Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files. So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think it is thus better to be "exhaustive" in that case.
Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ?
> > > >> + fi >> fi >> >> if [ ! -x "$SPATCH" ]; then >> > > Greg > >
-- Nicolas Palix http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/~npalix/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |