From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 15:47:50 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Auto review and Coccinelle In-Reply-To: <87sg2akj01.fsf@suse.de> References: <20210524144745.10887-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <87sg2akj01.fsf@suse.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > I guess that having it in travis as a post commit check would be better > > than nothing. > > > > Pre commit hook would be ideal but requiring coccinelle installed for > > LTP development would increase the bar for contribution too much I > > guess. > > I fear this defeats my primary goal of giving very quick feedback > without involving patch submission. This makes me think of clang-tidy > (clang-tools?) again. It will probably be more difficult to write LTP > specific checks, but I guess every desktop Linux distro less than 10 > years old has Clang? As far as I can tell clang is generally present on modern distributions while coccinelle tends to be problematic on some distributions. It's a great tool but it seems that there is a shortage of maintainers that can maintain ocaml packages. > I don't think there is much else I can do than try writing the same > check in clang as well. See how that goes... If that works well enough I would vote to a switch to clang-tidy. > Anyway, we could copy the kernel to some extent. Make it so running > > make coccicheck > > or > > make clang-tidy > > or more generic > > make check > > Will recursively run the checks on the files under the current > directory? Sounds like a good plan. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz