Re: [PATCH v9 02/10] scripts: Coccinelle script to use ERRP_AUTO_PROPAGATE()

[Markus Armbruster]

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden> writes:

> 19.03.2020 13:45, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
>>> So, understanding that there no such cases in the whole tree, and even
>>> if your patch works faster on the whole tree, I still don't want to
>>> drop inheritance, because it's just a correct thing to do. Yes, we've
>>> added ____ helper. It helps to avoid some problems. Pair-inheritance
>>> helps to avoid another problems. I understand, that there still may
>>> other, not-covered problems, but better to be as safe as possible. And
>>> inheritance here is native and correct thing to do, even with our ____
>>> additional helper. What do you think?
>>
>> I wouldn't call it correct.  It's still unreliable, but less so than
>> without the function name constraint.  That makes it less wrong.
>
> Agree.
>
>>
>> 100% reliable would be nice, but not at any cost.  Something we're
>> reasonably confident to get right should be good enough.
>>
>> To be confident, we need to understand the script's limitations, and how
>> to compensate for them.  I figure we do now.  You too?
>>
>
> I will not be surprised, if we missed some more interesting cases :)
> But we should proceed. What is our plan? Will you queue v10 for 5.1?

v10's PATCH 1+2 look ready.  The error.h comment update could perhaps
use some polish; I've focused my attention elsewhere.

PATCH 8-9 are generated.  They should never be rebased, always be
regenerated.  We compare regenerated patches to posted ones to make sure
they are still sane, and the R-bys are still valid.  I can take care of
the comparing.

I'd like to have a pull request ready when the tree reopens for general
development.  Let's use the time until then to get more generated
patches out for review.

If I queue up patches in my tree, we shift the responsibility for
regenerating patches from you to me, and create a coordination issue:
you'll want to base patch submissions on the branch I use to queue this
work, and that's going to be awkward when I rebase / regenerate that
branch.  I think it's simpler to queue up in your tree until we're ready
for a pull request.

When you post more patches, use

    Based-on: <address@hidden>

so that Patchew applies them on top of this series.  Hmm, probably won't
do, as PATCH 9 already conflicts.

You could instead repost PATCH 1+2 with each batch.  I hope that's not
too confusing.

I trust you'll keep providing a tag reviewers can pull.

I suggest to ask maintainers to leave merging these patches to me, in
cover letters.

Makes sense?