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: <648d287e-3636-1858-1439-103d317f8571@web.de>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:02:25 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, 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

>>>> 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.

I hope that the clarification of the presented questions can result into
relevant information.


>> 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?

I propose to adjust it another bit.
The desired change agreement might need further communication efforts.


> Feel free to submit patches, not just comments.

Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review?

Regards,
Markus