On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Now all scripts in scripts/coccinelle to be automatically called > > by coccicheck. However new adding add_namespace.cocci does not > > support report mode, which make coccicheck failed. > > This add "virtual report" to make the coccicheck go ahead smoothly. > > I find that this change description needs improvements and corrections. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=43b815c6a8e7dbccb5b8bd9c4b099c24bc22d135#n151 > > I would find a commit subject like “scripts: add_namespace: > Add support for the default coccicheck operation mode” more appropriate > (if this software development will be clarified further in the shown direction > at all). Please let this go. Please stop criticizing the English of others. The message is understandable, and even more informative than what you propose. julia > > > > Fixes: eb8305aecb95 ("scripts: Coccinelle script for namespace dependencies.") > > I got the impression that a sub-optimal solution approach would be chosen here. > The automatic script execution is requested despite of the fact > that the input parameter “name space” (SmPL identifier “virtual.ns”) > will be required. > > I am curious under which circumstances an other transformation > can become more attractive. > [PATCH 0/2] Coccinelle: Extend directory hierarchy > https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/d8c97f0a-6ce2-0f5a-74a9-63366c17f3a6@xxxxxx/ > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=412494 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/2/60 > > > > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/add_namespace.cocci > > @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ > > /// add a missing namespace tag to a module source file. > > /// > > > > +virtual report > > + > > @has_ns_import@ > > If you would insist on the complete support for the operation mode “report” > of the tool “coccicheck”, I would eventually expect that another SmPL rule > will provide a helpful message instead of immediately exiting after > the script variable “ns” was defined. > Are you going to take any additional software design options better > into account? > > Regards, > Markus >
