linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir is processed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DF38AB8.4080004@cuw.edu>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:33:12 -0500
From:	Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@....edu>
To:	Nicolas Palix <Nicolas.Palix@...ia.fr>
CC:	julia@...u.dk, rdunlap@...otime.net, Gilles.Muller@...6.fr,
	cocci@...u.dk, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir is
 processed

On 06/08/2011 02:10 PM, Nicolas Palix wrote:
> I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in
> that case we should
> also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ?
>
>    
I decided to skip doing this in V2 of the patch. I did a very quick test 
and cocci didn't seem to like two -I flags on one command line.
> The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like
> -include_headers or -all_includes).
> Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files.
> So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think
> it is thus better
> to be "exhaustive" in that case.
>
> Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ?
>    

Greg

--
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/