From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:15:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example Message-Id: <65db3f88-1ac8-374d-e3fe-2ea0970ffd67@web.de> 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> In-Reply-To: <34065299-03cf-5b62-db37-0acc9830be72@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Randy Dunlap , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Coccinelle Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Gilles Muller , Nicolas Palix , Michal Marek , Masahiro Yamada , Jonathan Corbet >> 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)? Regards, Markus