[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1106111740130.13465@ask.diku.dk>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:40:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To: Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@....edu>
Cc: Nicolas Palix <Nicolas.Palix@...ia.fr>, 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 Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote:
> 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.
What was the problem and what version of coccinelle do you have? To my
recollection, the ability to have multiple -I options was added sometime
not so long ago.
julia
> > 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists