From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:53434 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910AbeBEGmo (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2018 01:42:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1517812899.3118.372.camel@oracle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support multiple checkers From: Knut Omang Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:41:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Nicolas Palix , Masahiro Yamada , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon?= Bugge , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Gilles Muller , Tom Saeger , Michal Marek , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , "Paul E. McKenney" , Julia Lawall , John Haxby , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C5smund_=D8stvold?= , Matthew Wilcox , "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Andrew Morton On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 11:14 +0100, Knut Omang wrote: > Add scripts/runchecks which has generic support for running > checker tools in a convenient and user friendly way that > the author hopes can contribute to rein in issues detected > by these tools in a manageable and convenient way. > > scripts/runchecks provides the following basic functionality: > > * Makes it possible to selectively suppress output from individual > checks on a per file or per subsystem basis. > * Unifies output and suppression input from different tools > by providing a single unified syntax and presentation for the > underlying tools in the style of "scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types". > * Allows selective run of one, or more (or all) configured tools > for each file. > > In the Makefile system, the sparse specific setup has been replaced > by setup for runchecks. Hi all, - Anything more I can/need to do to bring this forward? - Any quiet concerns? I realize it is a subsystem crossing change, and a lot going on elsewhere, nevertheless I believe this is a time saver in the slightly longer run, as it allows automation of checking, even without a "perfect" code base to begin with. Thanks, Knut