On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 19:06 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 23:53 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 13:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 22:19 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 22 2020 at 09:07, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > > True enough for a general statement, though the coccinelle
> > > > > > > script Julia provided does not change a single instance of
> > > > > > > for loop expressions with commas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I can tell, no logic defect is introduced by the
> > > > > > > script at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The script has a rule to ensure that what is changed is part of a top
> > > > > > level statement that has the form e1, e2;. I put that in to avoid
> > > > > > transforming cases where the comma is the body of a macro, but it protects
> > > > > > against for loop headers as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. I went through the lot and did not find something dodgy. Except
> > > > > for two hunks this still applies. Can someone please send a proper patch
> > > > > with changelog/SOB etc. for this?
> > > >
> > > > Treewide?
> > > >
> > > > Somebody no doubt would complain, but there
> > > > _really should_ be some mechanism for these
> > > > trivial and correct treewide changes...
> > >
> > > There are lots of mechanisms:
> >
> > I've tried them all.
> >
> > None of them work particularly well,
> > especially the individual patch route.
> >
> > > - Andrew picks such changes up
> >
> > Generally not treewide.
> >
> > > - With a few competent eyeballs on it (reviewers) this can go thorugh
> > > the trivial tree as well. It's more than obvious after all.
> >
> > Jiri is almost non-existent when it comes to
> > trivial treewide patches.
> >
> > > - Send the script to Linus with a proper change log attached and ask
> > > him to run it.
> >
> > Linus has concerns about backports and what he
> > deems trivialities. Generally overblown IMO.
> >
> > > - In the worst case if nobody feels responsible, I'll take care.
> >
> > If Julia doesn't send a new patch in the next few
> > days, I will do the apply, fixup and resend of hers.
> >
> > So, you're on-deck, nearly up...
> >
> > > All of the above is better than trying to get the attention of a
> > > gazillion of maintainters.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > And all of the treewide changes depend on some
> > generic acceptance of value in the type of change.
> >
> > Some believe that comma->semicolon conversions
> > aren't useful as there isn't a logical change and
> > the compiler output wouldn't be different.
>
> I have a script that will cut up the patches and send them to the
> appropriate maintainers, so I have no problem with that route.

I have a script that does that too.

The complaint I get about its use is
"OMG: My specific commit header style isn't followed"

And the generic individual maintainer apply rate for
each specific patch is always less than 50%.

For instance the patches that converted the comma uses
in if/do/while statements to use braces and semicolons
from a month ago:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

29 patches, 13 applied.

Best of luck.

2020-09-26 19:13:16

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 19:08 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > I end up with 208 patches. I'm not sure that sending them all at once
> > would be a good idea...
>
> Last I looked the diffstat for comma -> semicolon was:
>
> 234 files changed, 509 insertions(+), 509 deletions(-)
>
> So it would be nearly 1 patch per individual file,

I have 282 files.

>
> Greg KH does send hundreds of patches for -stable at a time.
>
> So, maybe or maybe not send them all at once.
> Maybe send it in batches of 25 or so.
>
> There's no single right way to do this.
>
> Maybe put up a git tree somewhere and let the
> kernel-robot test compilation.

I compiled all but about 15 and checked those 15 an extra time.

I'll try the small batch approach to get started.

thanks,
julia

> (A nicety might be for the kernel-robot to have some
> option to test pre and post compilation object code
> differences with an optional report)
>
> When I automated 491 patches for /* fallthrough */ to
> fallthrough;, the robot caught a couple problems which
> was great.
>
> https://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/trivial-mods.git/shortlog/refs/heads/20200310_fallthrough_2
>
> I only posted the first ~30 patches though with
> about 50% acceptance. Gustavo Silva picked up the
> effort and did a great job. Eventually, a single
> treewide patch was posted and accepted by Linus for
> this though after dozens of individual patches went
> through various maintainer trees:
>
> $ git log --shortstat -1 df561f6688fe
> commit df561f6688fef775baa341a0f5d960becd248b11
> Author: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun Aug 23 17:36:59 2020 -0500
>
> treewide: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword
>
> Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with
> the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary
> fall-through markings when it is the case.
>
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=>
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>
> 1148 files changed, 2667 insertions(+), 2737 deletions(-)
>
>
>