[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] cleanup: Tweak and re-run return_directly.cocci

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup: Tweak and re-run return_directly.cocci
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:45:00 +0000

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 13:27, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> > The obvious answer is "you might have got your manual tweaking
> > wrong". A purely mechanised patch I can review by looking at
> > the script and maybe eyeballing a few instances of the change;
> > a change that is 99% mechanised and 1% hand-written I need to
> > run through to find the hand-written parts.
> Define "handwritten" :)
> If reverting unwanted line-breaks and blank lines counts, then I can
> make two patches, one straight from Coccinelle, and one that reverts the
> unwanted crap.  The first one will be larger and more annoying to review
> than this one.  A clear loss in my book, but I'm the patch submitter,
> not a patch reviewer, so my book doesn't matter.
> Else, we're down to one file, which I already offered to split off.
> > But mostly this patch is hard to review for its sheer size,
> > mechanical changes or not. A 3000 line patchmail is so big that
> > the UI on my mail client gets pretty unwieldy.
> With the manual one split off, target/xtensa/ dropped as requested by
> Max, and tests/tcg/mips/ dropped because its status is unclear (and I
> start to find it hard to care), we're down to
>  28 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-)

Yes, this is much better and "I hand tweaked these things"
is reasonable in a patch that big. It's the combination
of the ginormous multi-thousand-line patch and the hand
tweaking that was the really awkward part.

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]