Hi, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 06/07/2011 10:29 PM, Greg Dietsche wrote: >> >> Examples: >> Â Â Â Âmake coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/ >> Â Â Â Âmake coccicheck SUBDIRS=drivers/net/wireless/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche<Gregory.Dietsche@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> Âscripts/coccicheck | Â 13 +++++++++++-- >> Â1 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 >> Â# Â ÂOPTIONS=$* >> >> Â# Workaround for Coccinelle< Â0.2.3 >> - Â ÂFLAGS="-I $srctree/include -very_quiet" >> + Â Âif [ "$KBUILD_EXTMOD" = "" ] ; then >> + Â Â Â ÂFLAGS="-I $srctree/include -very_quiet" >> + Â Âelse >> + Â Â Â Â Â echo 'M= is only supported for Coccinelle>= 0.2.3' >> + Â Â Â Â Â exit 1 >> + Â Âfi >> Â Â Âshift $(( $# - 1 )) >> Â Â ÂOPTIONS=$1 >> Âelse >> Â Â ÂONLINE=0 >> Â Â ÂFLAGS="-very_quiet" >> - Â ÂOPTIONS="-dir $srctree" >> + Â Âif [ "$KBUILD_EXTMOD" = "" ] ; then >> + Â Â Â ÂOPTIONS="-dir $srctree" >> + Â Âelse >> + Â Â Â ÂOPTIONS="-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: > > + Â Â Â ÂOPTIONS="-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: > > + Â Â Â ÂOPTIONS="-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 $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ? The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like -include_headers or -all_includes). Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files. So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think it is thus better to be "exhaustive" in that case. Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ? > > > >> + Â Âfi >> Âfi >> >> Âif [ ! -x "$SPATCH" ]; then >> > > Greg > > -- Nicolas Palix http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/~npalix/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
