[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1517812899.3118.372.camel@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:41:39 +0100
From: Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Tom Saeger <tom.saeger@...cle.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>,
Åsmund Østvold <asmund.ostvold@...cle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support
multiple checkers
On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 11:14 +0100, Knut Omang wrote:
> Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running
> checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that
> the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected
> by these tools in a manageable and convenient way.
>
> scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality:
>
> * Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual
> checks on a per file or per subsystem basis.
> * Unifies output and suppression input from different tools
> by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the
> underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types".
> * Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools
> for each file.
>
> In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced
> by setup for runchecks.
Hi all,
- Anything more I can/need to do to bring this forward?
- Any quiet concerns?
I realize it is a subsystem crossing change, and a lot going on elsewhere,
nevertheless I believe this is a time saver in the slightly longer run,
as it allows automation of checking, even without a "perfect"
code base to begin with.
Thanks,
Knut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists