Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100 Knut Omang <knut.omang@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say > > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports > > arbitrary checkers. > > The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638 > > is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion > is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended > to be a checkpatch only solution. > > > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be > > a complete replacement? Or what? > > It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK. > > > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the > > help text. > > I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I split the > arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility. > > It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for > anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today I do. Here, I use: $ make ARCH=i386 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 W=1 CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both smatch and sparse: #!/bin/bash /devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@ /devel/sparse/sparse $@ So, I'm not sure why we need something else. That said, I didn't look on its code, but looking on its diffstat: Makefile | 23 +- scripts/Makefile.build | 4 +- scripts/runchecks | 734 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- scripts/runchecks.cfg | 63 ++- scripts/runchecks_help.txt | 43 ++- Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker seems too much! Thanks, Mauro -- 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
