| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509281440320.3108@hadrien> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:42:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> How do you think about the reuse of the parameter "--recursive-includes" here? > > > > Last time I have tried it, kernel source check took more than 10 hours, > > so I gave up. > > This is interesting background information. > > There are opportunities for more fine-tuning of such a source code analysis, > aren't there? I guess parallelism would be helpful? You could try the following options: -j n --chunksize 10 --recursive-includes --include-headers-for-types where n is the number of cores that you want to use. Parsed header files will be cached within chunks. I don't really know what is the best chunksize. julia > > Regards, > Markus > _______________________________________________ > Cocci mailing list > Cocci@...teme.lip6.fr > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci > -- 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