Re: [RFC v5 000/126] error: auto propagated local_err

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

20.11.2019 14:34, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:50:54 +0000
> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy<address@hidden>  wrote:
> 
>> Okay...
>>
>> I think that:
>>
>> 1. A lot of efforts (not only my, I think reviewing is already exceeded 
>> generation efforts)
>>     are made, it would be sad to lose them.
>>
>> 2. It's safe enough to apply only part of generated patches: we just fix 
>> error_abort/error_fatal
>>     in more popular subsystems, what's wrong with that? Why not to cover 80% 
>> cases by 20% efforts?
>>
>> 3. It's obviously impossible to merge the whole series. A lot of time 
>> passed, series diverges.
>>
>>
>> So I propose the following plan:
>>
>> 1. I resend small separate series of preparation patches per maintainer. 
>> They are good anyway.
>>
>> 2. We commit patch with macro (changing MUST to SHOULD in documentation) and 
>> coccinelle script.
>>      (or that may be combined with the first series from [3.])
>>
>> 3. When one of preparations taken to maintainer's tree, I send generated 
>> patches for
>>      its maintainer.
>>
>>
>> If no objections during a week, I'll start that plan, hope someone will 
>> support it.
>>
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> I support your plan and I will help this to go forward for 9pfs, PowerPC
> and XIVE. I'll start with pushing the preparatory patch for 9pfs to my
> 9p-next branch right away.
> 
> [RFC v5 009/126] 9pfs: well form error hint helpers
> 
> Cheers,

Thank you Greg!

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir