On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > - Is it okay to give Reviewed-By on the basis of _just_ the in-tree > > changes and ignore the .cocci patch? > > If they were made in separate steps, sure. If not, not really. But > we can still say "I've checked the changes the author made to the > code and they looked good." But we haven't reviewed the patch in > its entirety in such a case to give a Reviewed-by, I would thihk. I think that while none of us would probably call ourselves "Coccinelle experts", we are probably reasonably capable of reviewing *.cocci files and their impact on the tree. What I meant when we were talking about this off-list was that I don't consider myself an expert at writing idiomatic Coccinelle rules. But I feel competent enough that I could review Ævar's patches by roughly grokking the *.cocci changes, and then checking that the resulting tree state matched my understanding of those changes. > > - Do we care about new patches slowing down coccicheck? I was the one who asked this question off-list, and I did so in a leading way that implied that the answer was "no". > Surely. But I agree with Junio that we *do* care about slowing down the performance of 'make coccicheck'. When I originally asked, I was under the (false) impression that we didn't run 'make coccicheck' in CI. But we do (see ci/run-static-analysis.sh), so we do care about the performance there since we don't want to unnecessarily slow down CI. Thanks, Taylor
