From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:19:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example Message-Id: <30b722ca-1bd8-2b96-ca41-1e9bc7212b66@infradead.org> List-Id: References: <0616dd0c-bb86-be2b-3dc6-1c695a92c3ca@infradead.org> <2a3940de-6a81-1aff-8109-53c1c5a6aa1b@web.de> <2f80fb10-dc7f-29be-dc3e-2715f8bafc6d@web.de> <648d287e-3636-1858-1439-103d317f8571@web.de> <34065299-03cf-5b62-db37-0acc9830be72@infradead.org> <65db3f88-1ac8-374d-e3fe-2ea0970ffd67@web.de> In-Reply-To: <65db3f88-1ac8-374d-e3fe-2ea0970ffd67@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Markus Elfring , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Coccinelle Cc: Michal Marek , Gilles Muller , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Nicolas Palix , LKML , Julia Lawall On 7/1/20 8:15 AM, Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review? >> >> I am satisfied with the current patch. > > I got an other software development impression. > > >> No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum, >> but I'm not trying to do that. > > Do we stumble on a target conflict according to a specific technical detail? > > How do you think about to compare source code analysis results > from programs like “sparse” and “spatch” (by the mentioned make command)? None of that has anything to do with the current patch. Julia, do you have any comments about the current patch? (v2) thanks. -- ~Randy