On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 26/11/17 10:09 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > I don't know. In any case, a Coccinelle script would get run by the 0-day
> > build testing service, which checks lots of trees. Perhaps both are
> > useful, since Joe had some conerns about the amount of relevant context
> > available in a patch.
>
> Yup, both could certainly be useful. A coccinelle script would likely be
> able to catch a few false negatives that might pass through the
> checkpatch script. It'll likely have similar difficulties with
> KERN_CONTs though.
Not sure why. I just assume that a printk that has no KERN_ is adding a
newline, which is my understanding of Joe's comment.
The main limitation that is likely to remain in my script is that
Coccinelle doesn't always understand ifdefs properly. So
#ifdef
printk("xxx");
#else
printk("yyy");
#endif
pr_cont("zzz");
may give a warning about the first printk.
> Also, I don't really know, but it might be tough enabling a script to
> run on 0-day with the ~6000 potential errors already existing.
0-day only runs on changed files and only reports on changed code, to
the best of my understanding, so I don't think it is a problem.
julia
>
> Logan
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
