On 15.1.2010 17:49, Németh Márton wrote: > Hi Marek, s/Marek/Michal/ :) > there was a discussion about patches which are generated using the > tool called spatch. In the changelog the SmPL script was usually > included, see http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux-2.6.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=%3Csmpl%3E . > It is useful to store the SmPL scripts because they may find > problems in the newcoming code also. > > In order to run a "check" the spatch tool and the SmPL is also necessary. > There was an idea to place the used SmPL scripts under the Linux > kernel source tree so it can move from the changelog but still remain > for later use. The "check" could be run similar to the tools checkpatch, > sparse or lockdep. > > What do you think where the SmPL scripts can be placed? Documentation/smpl/$name_of_problem_fixed.cocci? Or maybe better scripts/smlp/..., if you are going to add some wrapper that runs the semantic patches on the source tree. Or something like that, a dedicated subdirectory to store the semantic patches in individual files. > What do you think the best way would be to introduce some check like this > in the build environment? I've only heard about the tool, I haven't used it yet. Does it need to preprocess and parse source files like sparse does, or can it check C files without expanding macros and includes? If the former, then let's extend make C=... to also support spatch. If the latter, then a script that runs spatch on all *.c files found the tree should be enough. But as I said, I haven't used the tool, so I don't know what it needs and what it can offer. Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
