Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] documentation: coccinelle: Improve command example for make C={1, 2}

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] documentation: coccinelle: Improve command example for make C={1, 2}

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]



On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > the usage of the makefile C variable flag by coccicheck.
>
> * Can it be confusing to denote an item as a variable and a flag?
>
> * Would you really like to stress here that a flag can be variable?

This is not part of the documentation, so it doesn't really matter.

Nevertheless, Sumera, there is stail an occurrence of flag in the proposed
change to the documentation, so you could indeed change that one to
variable.

>
>
> > +This variable can be used to run scripts for …
>
> Can the scope for a make command be selected also without such a variable?

If you know something that is different than what is in the documentation,
then please say what it is.  Don't just ask questions.

> Will clarification requests for previously mentioned background information
> influence the proposed descriptions any further?

The point is to document the use of make coccicheck, not the C variables.
So the point about KBUILD_CHECK, while interesting, does not seem
appropriate for this documentation.

julia

Re: [v3] documentation: coccinelle: Improve command example for make C={1, 2}

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:03:09AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> the usage of the makefile C variable flag by coccicheck.
> >>
> >> * Can it be confusing to denote an item as a variable and a flag?
> >>
> >> * Would you really like to stress here that a flag can be variable?
> >
> > This is not part of the documentation, so it doesn't really matter.
> 
> It seems then that your expectations for the clarity of change descriptions
> (or commit messages) can vary considerably.
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, Sumera, there is stail an occurrence of flag in the proposed
> > change to the documentation, so you could indeed change that one to variable.
> 
> Will any related adjustments become more interesting?
> 
> 
> >>> +This variable can be used to run scripts for …
> >>
> >> Can the scope for a make command be selected also without such a variable?
> >
> > If you know something that is different than what is in the documentation,
> > then please say what it is.  Don't just ask questions.
> 
> I suggest to increase the distinction for the application of such command parameters.
> 
> 
> >> Will clarification requests for previously mentioned background information
> >> influence the proposed descriptions any further?
> >
> > The point is to document the use of make coccicheck,
> 
> Another attempt is evolving for the affected software documentation.
> 
> 
> > not the C variables.
> 
> I got an other impression here.
> 
> 
> > So the point about KBUILD_CHECK, while interesting, does not seem
> > appropriate for this documentation.
> 
> How do you think about to clarify the influence of a macro like “KBUILD_CHECKSRC”
> (or the specification “$(call cmd,force_checksrc)”)?
> 
> Will a cross reference for the applied make scripts help to achieve
> a better common understanding (and corresponding descriptions) of
> the involved dependencies?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus



Hi,

This is the friendly semi-automated patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response.

Right now, the development tree you have sent a patch for is "closed"
due to the timing of the merge window.  Don't worry, the patch(es) you
have sent are not lost, and will be looked at after the merge window is
over (after the -rc1 kernel is released by Linus).

So thank you for your patience and your patches will be reviewed at this
later time, you do not have to do anything further, this is just a short
note to let you know the patch status and so you don't worry they didn't
make it through.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

[PATCH v3] documentation: coccinelle: Improve command example for make C={1,2}

[Sumera Priyadarsini]

Modify coccinelle documentation to further clarify
the usage of the makefile C variable flag by coccicheck.

Signed-off-by: Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@gmail.com>

---
Changes in v3:
        - Remove quotes as suggested by Markus Elfring
	- Change in wording, and punctuation, as suggested by Julia Lawall
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst | 15 +++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
index 6c791af1c859..74c5e6aeeff5 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
@@ -175,13 +175,20 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wireless/ one may write::
     make coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/
 
 To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
-following command may be used::
+C variable is used by the makefile to select which files to work with.
+This variable can be used to run scripts for the entire kernel, a
+specific directory, or for a single file.
 
-    make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
+For example, to check drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.c, the value 1 is
+passed to the C variable to check files that make considers
+need to be compiled.::
 
-To check only newly edited code, use the value 2 for the C flag, i.e.::
+    make C=1 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.o
 
-    make C=2 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
+The value 2 is passed to the C variable to check files regardless of
+whether they need to be compiled or not.::
+
+    make C=2 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.o
 
 In these modes, which work on a file basis, there is no information
 about semantic patches displayed, and no commit message proposed.
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] documentation: coccinelle: Improve command example for make C={1, 2}

[Julia Lawall]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Sumera Priyadarsini wrote:

> Modify coccinelle documentation to further clarify
> the usage of the makefile C variable flag by coccicheck.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@gmail.com>

Thanks.

Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>



>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
>         - Remove quotes as suggested by Markus Elfring
> 	- Change in wording, and punctuation, as suggested by Julia Lawall
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst | 15 +++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> index 6c791af1c859..74c5e6aeeff5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
> @@ -175,13 +175,20 @@ For example, to check drivers/net/wireless/ one may write::
>      make coccicheck M=drivers/net/wireless/
>
>  To apply Coccinelle on a file basis, instead of a directory basis, the
> -following command may be used::
> +C variable is used by the makefile to select which files to work with.
> +This variable can be used to run scripts for the entire kernel, a
> +specific directory, or for a single file.
>
> -    make C=1 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +For example, to check drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.c, the value 1 is
> +passed to the C variable to check files that make considers
> +need to be compiled.::
>
> -To check only newly edited code, use the value 2 for the C flag, i.e.::
> +    make C=1 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.o
>
> -    make C=2 CHECK="scripts/coccicheck"
> +The value 2 is passed to the C variable to check files regardless of
> +whether they need to be compiled or not.::
> +
> +    make C=2 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck drivers/bluetooth/bfusb.o
>
>  In these modes, which work on a file basis, there is no information
>  about semantic patches displayed, and no commit message proposed.
> --
> 2.17.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>