From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752854AbdKTVKZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:10:25 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:41056 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbdKTVKY (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:10:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1511212212.4822.66.camel@oracle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch From: Knut Omang To: Luc Van Oostenryck , Jim Davis Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michal Marek , Linux Kbuild mailing list Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:10:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20171120200827.726yhebihjhrhted@ltop.local> References: <716fa938a4ab0ad66490b72e2ed750cd6583728f.1510840787.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com> <20171120200827.726yhebihjhrhted@ltop.local> Organization: Oracle Inc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 21:08 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:48:35PM -0700, Jim Davis wrote: > > > > I'd be nice if people could just specify CHECK and CHECKFLAGS to run > > their favorite checker, but currently CHECKFLAGS seems hardwired for > > running sparse. So something liike > > > > make C=1 CHECK="scripts/checkpatch.pl" CHECKFLAGS="--quiet --file" > > > > fails when checkpatch is passed lots of arguments like -D__linux__ > > -Dlinux -D__STDC__ . A little shell wrapper to grab the last argument > > in that long list is a workaround, but perhaps CHECKFLAGS should be > > made less sparse-specific? > > It should be noted though that CHECKFLAGS contains very very few > sparse specific things. It's mainly flags for the compiler > coming from KBUILD_CFLAGS (which of course, sparse needs to > do its job properly). Yes, and we would want some arguments passed to checkpatch by default as well. A wrapper script (which by the way was what I started this with..) could of course solve this and other issues such as the ability to run multiple checkers, but I am not convinced that that would be less ugly? Thanks, Knut > > -- Luc Van Oostenryck