Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:08:16 -0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
To: Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= <mic@digikod.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SMOla29u?= Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?w4VzbXVu?= =?UTF-8?B?ZCDDmHN0dm9sZA==?= 
        <asmund.ostvold@oracle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support
 multiple checkers
Message-ID: <20180105160816.2e940aac@vento.lan>
In-Reply-To: <1515096931.31439.647.camel@oracle.com>
References: <cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.1515072782.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com>
        <5f292b7effba0efcf4855bff83b7b9313ac45895.1515072782.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com>
        <874lo1aait.fsf@intel.com>
        <1515096931.31439.647.camel@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100
Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com> escreveu:

> > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> > arbitrary checkers.   
> 
> The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
> 
> is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
> is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
> to be a checkpatch only solution.
> 
> > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> > a complete replacement? Or what?  
> 
> It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
> 
> > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> > help text.  
> 
> I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I split the 
> arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
> 
> It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
> anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today

I do. Here, I use:

$ make ARCH=i386  CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 W=1 CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media

Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both
smatch and sparse:

	#!/bin/bash
	/devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@
	/devel/sparse/sparse $@

So, I'm not sure why we need something else. That said, I didn't look
on its code, but looking on its diffstat:

 Makefile                               |  23 +-
 scripts/Makefile.build                 |   4 +-
 scripts/runchecks                      | 734 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 scripts/runchecks.cfg                  |  63 ++-
 scripts/runchecks_help.txt             |  43 ++-

Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker
seems too much!

Thanks,
Mauro