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

From: Greg Dietsche
Date: Sat Jun 11 2011 - 13:22:23 EST




On 06/11/2011 10:40 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
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.

Hmm... my 'quick' test must have been bad. I just tested again with 0.2.3 (debian squeeze) and 1.0.0-rc3 and both seem to work just with multiple -I options. As I recall, originally, the script just exited with a code of 1 in my original test...

so the updated line really should read:
OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD -patch $srctree -I $srctree/include -I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include"

I'll send an updated patch in a day or two. I've got some other stuff to do today. Also, I noticed another bug that I'll need to fix too. The lines in my patch that read:
echo 'M= is only supported for Coccinelle >= 0.2.3'
exit 1
are flat out wrong... :(

Greg

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/