Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support multiple checkers

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:41:41 +0100
Knut Omang <knut.omang@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

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

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