From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE43C433DF for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:07:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039AA206C3 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:07:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="M3oGG8PM" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731646AbgGAPHS (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:07:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57028 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731505AbgGAPHS (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:07:18 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1231::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC934C08C5C1; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=L3kKHrtugZdZaaaEA+9AzSKVijtsEP+fouPlZ1lpYfo=; b=M3oGG8PMqN8K4FAu523qeKzcLi tHyOZRIc6eTPCI0K6yfu4vYkiSWAvtg202r3Vgi3ToycReduqU3rLS7McoJ/IuVVNyIO0YkjoZvmR emSVuipiCA9+6KQfBEXqwTm2+at/qnA/R/45dtwZPohMzoqcaxFf34qSWq3PrwTabTLNPIsoaz3Dq Gwuxns2WspMRje0MiJs1H4yQi6N2qMaXJ4Vg3YMN72sbB1cLSEKyIlRBoeeK81tF/aVsC1uPwl18F cY5EIypqviPOAqksyBeYzoWXVA1u0gH2A8tztZHuoQGnHAeTk+cbdWzOJIkkPZeDKm7vDweKRy2XX tRKt7rqg==; Received: from [2601:1c0:6280:3f0::19c2] by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jqeKO-00064z-3z; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:07:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example To: Markus Elfring , 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 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> From: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: <34065299-03cf-5b62-db37-0acc9830be72@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:07:06 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <648d287e-3636-1858-1439-103d317f8571@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On 7/1/20 8:02 AM, Markus Elfring wrote: >>>>> How do you think about to use the following command variant >>>>> for the adjustment of the software documentation? >>>>> >>>>> + make C=1 CHECK='scripts/coccicheck' 'path/to/file.o' >>>> >>>> I don't understand the reason for that change... >> >> IOW, your "patch" needs justification and/or explanation. It was missing that info. > > I hope that the clarification of the presented questions can result into > relevant information. > > >>> Is our understanding still incomplete for the support of source code checking parameters >>> by the make script? >>> >>> * Will software analysis be performed in addition to the desired compilation >>> of a source file (according to the selected object file)? >>> >>> * How do you think about to trigger only the generation of analysis results >>> for a single file? >> >> Do I need to remove that line from the patch? > > I propose to adjust it another bit. > The desired change agreement might need further communication efforts. > > >> Feel free to submit patches, not just comments. > > Would you like to integrate any more details from the running patch review? I am satisfied with the current patch. No doubt that any documentation can be improved, almost ad infinitum, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying not to do that. -- ~Randy