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]

Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:07:06 -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 8:02 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>>> 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?

I am satisfied with the current patch.

No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum,
but I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying not to do that.


-- 
~Randy