Hi Julia,
2017-11-14 15:44 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>: > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> Hi Julia, >> >> 2017-11-14 1:45 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Julia, >> >> >> >> >> >> 2017-11-14 0:30 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> The command "make -j8 C=1 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck" produces lots of >> >> >> "coccicheck failed" error messages. >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not know the coccinelle internals, but I guess --jobs does not >> >> >> work well if spatch is invoked from Make running in parallel. >> >> >> Disable --jobs in this case. >> >> > >> >> > Why is this change under: >> >> > >> >> > if [ "$C" = "1" -o "$C" = "2" ]; >> >> > >> >> > The coccicheck failed messages come also if one runs Coccinelle on the >> >> > entire kernel. >> >> >> >> As far as I tested, "coccicheck failed" error only happens >> >> when ONLINE=1. >> >> >> >> >> >> make -j8 C=1 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck >> >> COCCI=scripts/coccinelle/misc/bugon.cocci >> >> >> >> emits lots of errors. >> >> >> >> >> >> make -j8 coccicheck COCCI=scripts/coccinelle/misc/bugon.cocci >> >> >> >> is fine. >> >> >> >> >> >> Have you tested it? >> >> Do you mean you got a different result from mine? >> > >> > I agree with your results, with respect to the number of errors. >> > >> > julia >> > >> >> So, what shall we do? >> >> If you do not like to fix it (or you can fix coccinelle itself), >> I can take back this patch. > > I'm OK with your fix. I will check and ack it today. > >> I am not a coccinelle developer, so >> setting USE_JOBS="no" is the best I can do. > > The problem on the Coccinelle side is that it uses a subdirectory with the > name of the semantic patch to store standard output and standard error for > the different threads. I didn't want to use a name with the pid, so that > one could easily find this information while Coccinelle is running. > Normally the subdirectory is cleaned up when Coccinelle completes, so > there is only one of them at a time. Maybe it is best to just add the > pid. There is the risk that these subdirectories will accumulate if > Coccinelle crashes in a way such that they don't get cleaned up, but > Coccinelle could print a warning if it detects this case, rather than > failing. > > Still I think it is useful to do something on the make coccicheck side, > because there is no need for the double layer of parallelism. > Thanks a lot for detailed explanation! I brushed up my patch. Could you check v3, please? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
