lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support multiple checkers
From
Date
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 08:12 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:41:41 +0100
> Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com> escreveu:
>
> > On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 16:08 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100
> > > Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com> escreveu:
> > >
> > > > > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> > > > > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> > > > > arbitrary checkers.
> > > >
> > > > The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
> > > >
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
> > > >
> > > > is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion
> > > > is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended
> > > > to be a checkpatch only solution.
> > > >
> > > > > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> > > > > a complete replacement? Or what?
> > > >
> > > > It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
> > > >
> > > > > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> > > > > help text.
> > > >
> > > > I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I split the
> > > > arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for
> > > > anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today
> > >
> > > I do. Here, I use:
> > >
> > > $ make ARCH=i386 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 W=1
> > > CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media
> > >
> > > Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both
> > > smatch and sparse:
> > >
> > > #!/bin/bash
> > > /devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@
> >
> > I suppose you here refer to this:
> > https://blogs.oracle.com/linuxkernel/smatch-static-analysis-tool-overview,-by-dan-carpenter
> >
> > Good idea! I'll have a look at how that plays with this.
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > > /devel/sparse/sparse $@
> > >
> > > So, I'm not sure why we need something else.
> >
> > The core functionality is the selective suppression logic and output unification
> > which makes checking with automated build tools more flexible and
> > applicable right away (not when every warning from every checker is fixed...)
>
> If the idea is to use it only/mostly with automated build tools, then
> the better would be to call it only when explicitly requested, e. g.
> something like C=3, in order to avoid breaking the usecase where one
> would run its own script.

Funny you should mention C=3 - I have an idea for that, but not what you suggest...

> On my case, I use C=1 CHECK=compile_checks as part as my usual patch
> handling.

This is exactly what I implemented this for - I do this myself.

> For every patch I apply on media, I call make again, to be
> sure that no warning/building errors were added, not only with gcc
> but also with smatch and sparse.

I humbly think this should fit your use case perfectly ;-)
Once build bots use this across the line, you might even save time
reviewing other people's smatch/sparse errors in your code, and also get the benefit of
errors detected by checkpatch - without having to fix all checkpatch check types right
away, you might also as a maintainer decide that some are not desirable to fix,
yet still be able to get the benefit of automation.

Just to illustrate, this is the result for az6007.o in -rc6:

total: 0 errors, 13 warnings, 20 checks, 991 lines checked

> > > That said, I didn't look
> > > on its code, but looking on its diffstat:

No problem,

Thanks,
Knut

> > >
> > > Makefile | 23 +-
> > > scripts/Makefile.build | 4 +-
> > > scripts/runchecks | 734 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > scripts/runchecks.cfg | 63 ++-
> > > scripts/runchecks_help.txt | 43 ++-
> > >
> > > Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker
> > > seems too much!
> >
> > Sure, if that was the case I would be the first to agree :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Knut
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mauro
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-14 23:16    [W:0.068 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site