Re: 2.6.0-test5: configcheck results

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:40:01 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
| > Hi all,
| > 
| > I just ran make configcheck on 2.6.0-test5 and the results are:
| > 
| >     832 files need linux/config.h but don't actually include it.
| >     689 files which include linux/config.h but don't require the header.
| 
| Randy, you have looked into related perl scripts. Is the result of
| checkconfig.pl reliable?

They aren't perfect.  I consider them more like 80-90% solutions.
Usable until there's a better solution IMO, like maybe sparse.

The perl scripts don't look at other #included files to check if they
supply any of the needed #defines.  I.e., they look only at the one
file being searched to check if it uses names (CONFIG_*) without
#include-ing config.h in this case, so it can produce false positives.

I looked quickly at crypto/tcrypt.c (which is listed as needing config.h).
It #includes linux/init.h, which #includes linux/config.h.
I expect that there are several...or many like this.

--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/