*Allow defining the environment variable “COCCI” as a directory to search
SmPL scripts.
*Start a corresponding file determination if it contains an acceptable
path.
Signed-off-by: zhongshiqi <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v5:
1:rewrite change description as an enumeration
Changes in v4:
1:rewrite change description in another wording
Changes in v3:
1:rewrite change description
2:fix patch subject
3:modify commit log
Changes in v2:
1.fix patch subject according to the reply by Markus
<[email protected]>
2.change description in “imperative mood”
scripts/coccicheck | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/coccicheck b/scripts/coccicheck
index e04d328..a1c4197 100755
--- a/scripts/coccicheck
+++ b/scripts/coccicheck
@@ -257,6 +257,10 @@ if [ "$COCCI" = "" ] ; then
for f in `find $srctree/scripts/coccinelle/ -name '*.cocci' -type f | sort`; do
coccinelle $f
done
+elif [ -d "$COCCI" ] ; then
+ for f in `find $COCCI/ -name '*.cocci' -type f | sort`; do
+ coccinelle $f
+ done
else
coccinelle $COCCI
fi
--
2.9.5
I got the impression that you are struggling with difficulties (for unknown reasons)
around adding space characters at some places.
How would you like to improve this situation?
> *Allow defining the environment variable “COCCI” as a directory to search
> SmPL scripts.
>
> *Start a corresponding file determination if it contains an acceptable
> path.
* Allow defining the environment variable “COCCI” as a directory
to search SmPL scripts.
* Start a corresponding file determination if it contains
an acceptable path.
Would you like to update the provided software documentation together with
the small extension of this bash script?
Update candidates:
* https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst?id=23fdb198ae81f47a574296dab5167c5e136a02ba#n189
* https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck#controlling_which_files_are_processed_by_coccinelle
> ---
‣ Would you find the patch change log sufficient without the information
“Changes in”?
‣ I find the specification “1:” unnecessary before a single description item.
Regards,
Markus