On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote: > On 06/08/2011 02:10 PM, Nicolas Palix wrote: > > I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in > > that case we should > > also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ? > > > > > I decided to skip doing this in V2 of the patch. I did a very quick test and > cocci didn't seem to like two -I flags on one command line.
What was the problem and what version of coccinelle do you have? To my recollection, the ability to have multiple -I options was added sometime not so long ago. julia > > The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like > > -include_headers or -all_includes). > > Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files. > > So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think > > it is thus better > > to be "exhaustive" in that case. > > > > Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ? > > > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
