[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimdbs2AZ9OE6j+=ziJA1LR2wkZR5qsT8AEq--5x@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:06:26 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Palix <npalix@...u.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Test for kmalloc/memset(0) pairs
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> Indeed that one seems to be quite out of date. You can get the most
>> recent version here: https://launchpad.net/~npalix/+archive/coccinelle
>
> With tools/coccinelle/ you would never run into such problems of distributing
> the latest stable version to your fellow kernel developers: it would always be
> available in tools/coccinelle/.
>
> Integration, synergy, availability, distribution and half a dozen other
> buzzwords come to mind as to why it's a good idea to have kernel-focused
> tools hosted in the kernel repo :-)
>
> IMO it's an option to consider.
That's my thinking too. Yes, 80 KLOC of OCaml in the kernel tree
sounds crazy but I think the practical advantages might be enough to
justify it. Btw, would git-submodule be something to consider here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists