Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir isprocessed

[Julia Lawall]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote:

> 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.

What was the problem and what version of coccinelle do you have?  To my 
recollection, the ability to have multiple -I options was added sometime 
not so long ago.

julia

> > 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
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/