[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35c7a2b7-a54c-ecd5-9903-efbb6e3c01d2@web.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:15:07 +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
>> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review?
>
> I am satisfied with the current patch.
I got an other software development impression.
> No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum,
> but I'm not trying to do that.
Do we stumble on a target conflict according to a specific technical detail?
How do you think about to compare source code analysis results
from programs like “sparse” and “spatch” (by the mentioned make command)?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists