linux-kernel - Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example

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: <dfa2ed9f-fe68-58d1-c3d0-ac436f9bee09@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:52:58 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example

On 7/1/20 6:32 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>>> We might stumble on different interpretations according to the wording “file basis”.
>>>>> Do you find a message like “make: Nothing to be done for 'path/to/file.c'.” interesting then?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Would you like to add any links for information around the support for
>>>>>   source code checkers?
>>>>>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile?id=7c30b859a947535f2213277e827d7ac7dcff9c84#n198
>>> …
>>>> Feel free to submit patches.
>>>
>>> How do you think about to use the following command variant
>>> for the adjustment of the software documentation?
>>>
>>> +    make C=1 CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' 'path/to/file.o'
>>
>> I don't understand the reason for that change...

IOW, your "patch" needs justification and/or explanation. It was missing that info.

> Is our understanding still incomplete for the support of source code checking parameters
> by the make script?
> 
> * Will software analysis be performed in addition to the desired compilation
>   of a source file (according to the selected object file)?
> 
> * How do you think about to trigger only the generation of analysis results
>   for a single file?

Do I need to remove that line from the patch?

Feel free to submit patches, not just comments.

-- 
~Randy