Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 17:21:44 +0200
From:   Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     dan.carpenter@oracle.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT_TRACE logs in
 core/*
Message-ID: <20210403152143.GA1403@agape.jhs>
References: <cover.1617440833.git.fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>
 <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files.
> 
> and hal and include and os_dep

Hi, 

I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files.
The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the
number of patch per patchset

> 
> > 
> > This is the first of a series aimed at removing RT_TRACE macro.
> > 
> > The whole private tracing system is not tied to a configuration
> > symbol and the default behaviour is _trace nothing_. It's verbose
> > and relies on a private log level tracing doomed to be
> > removed.
> 
> It's nice, but individual patches per file done by hand are difficult
> to review because you are interleaving removal patches with cleanup
> patches.
> 
> I believe this should be a patch series with a single patch to remove
> all RT_TRACE macro uses using coccinelle and then use separate patches
> to do whatever cleanups around these removals you want to do.

It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal
could be huge

> 
> All of these below should be done for all files in drivers/staging/rtl8723bs
> at once instead of submitting per-file patches.
> 
> IMO something like:
> 
> Cover-letter: Explain why you are doing this
> Patch 1 of N: Remove all RT_TRACE macro uses using a coccinelle script
>               and include the coccinelle script in the commit message
> Patch 2 of N: Remove commented out RT_TRACE uses
> Patch 3 of N: Remove RT_TRACE macro definition
> Patch 4 of N: Cleanup coccinelle generated {} uses, if/else braces and
>               the now unnecessary if tests around the RT_TRACE removals
> Patch 5 of N: Cleanup whitespace
> Patcn x of N: Whatever else related to these RT_TRACE sites...
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c845d8ea7d0d8e7a613471edb53d780d660142a9.camel@perches.com/
> 
> Using a sequence like the above would be much easier to review and
> would be a significant shorter patch set.
> 

moreover every non RT_TRACE deletion patch (clean up patch) is near 
to the contextual deletion patch (parent patch or grand-parent)

but I do not have experience in code reviewing, so I will do like you
say. Maybe I wait for other opinions, but what you say is good and
elegant.

thank you,

fabio