Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen/scripts: add cppcheck tool to the xen-analysis.py script

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@arm.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
	Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen/scripts: add cppcheck tool to the xen-analysis.py script
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 12:20:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e5aacddc-1149-6a8d-4840-836edb3ad0c0@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FE8EBB1-B565-4257-B966-BD1E97E32451@arm.com>

On 01.12.2022 12:18, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2022, at 08:33, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 30.11.2022 21:26, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>> I think the revert of the cppcheck integration in xen/Makefile and
>>>>> xen/tools/merge_cppcheck_reports.py could be a separate patch. There is
>>>>> no need to make sure cppcheck support in the xen Makefile is
>>>>> "bisectable". That patch could have my acked-by already.
>>>>
>>>> Ok I will split these changes in a following patch
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also the document changes introduced in this patch have my reviewed-by:
>>>>> - docs/misra/cppcheck.txt
>>>>> - docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst
>>>>> - docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json
>>>>> - docs/misra/xen-static-analysis.rst
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, should I put those files in a separate patch with your rev-by before
>>>> this patch or this is just a comment for you to remember which file you already
>>>> reviewed?
>>>
>>> If Jan and the other reviewers are OK, I think you could split them out
>>> in a separate patch and add my reviewed-by. If Jan prefers to keep it
>>> all together in one patch, then I wrote it down so that I remember what
>>> I have already acked :-)
>>
>> Docs changes being split off and going in first is okay as long as what
>> is being documented is present behavior. If other changes are needed to
>> make (parts of) new documentation actually correct, then it should imo
>> go together. If new documentation describes future behavior (e.g.
>> design docs), then of course it's fine as well to go in early, as then
>> there simply is no code anywhere which this would (temporarily) not
>> describe correctly.
> 
> Yeah I thought so, I would prefer to keep these files here otherwise I would need to
> change them somehow and I would lose the r-by anyway.
> 
> Regarding the revert of cppcheck from makefile and xen/tools/merge_cppcheck_reports.py,
> are you ok if I send a patch with only those changes? Would it be ok for you if the new patch
> is after this one?

I don't mind you doing so, but I guess the question is mainly to people
actually / possibly making use of those make goals.

Jan