Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:16:25 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        Tatyana Nikolova <tatyana.e.nikolova@intel.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
        Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@intel.com>,
        Chien Tin Tung <chien.tin.tung@intel.com>,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
Message-ID: <20160912131625.GD957@intel.com> (sfid-20160912_151655_629991_67637E92)
References: <1473599168-30561-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
 <20160911172105.GB5493@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1609121051050.3049@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1609121051050.3049@hadrien>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Constify local structures.
> > >
> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > Just my two cents but:
> >
> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
> >    messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
> >    that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
> >    somehow.
> >
> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
> 
> All of the patches are compile tested.  And the individual patches are

Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
you should explain why.

> submitted to the relevant maintainers.  The individual commit messages
> give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the
> structure was constifiable.  It seemed redundant to put that in the cover
> letter, which will not be committed anyway.

I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process
*that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to
explain that but it depends on the context).

I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this
particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can
be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient.
Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals.

> julia

/Jarkko