[GEDI] [RFC v2 0/9] error: auto propagated local_err

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy vsementsov at virtuozzo.com
Tue Sep 24 15:46:27 UTC 2019

24.09.2019 18:44, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 24.09.2019 18:28, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 9/24/19 9:12 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>>> 3. What to do with huge auto-generated commit 07? Should I split it
>>>>> per-maintainer or per-subsystem, or leave it as-is?
>>>> It's big. I'd split it into multiple patches (and reduce the cc - except
>>>> for the cover letter, the rest of the patches can be limited to the
>>>> actual maintainer/subsystem affected rather than everyone involved
>>>> anywhere else in the series. With the current large cc, anyone that
>>>> replies gets several mail bounces about "too many recipients").  It may
>>>> be easier to split along directory boundaries than by maintainer
>>>> boundaries.  Markus has applied large tree-wide Coccinelle cleanups
>>>> before, maybe he has some advice.
>>> If split by subsystem it would be 200+ patches:
>>> git diff --name-only | while read f; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f --subsystem --no-rolestats 2>/dev/null | grep -v @ | head -1; done | sort | uniq | wc -l
>>> 205
>>> Try to look at larger subsystem:
>>> git diff --name-only | while read f; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f --subsystem --no-rolestats 2>/dev/null | grep -v @ | tail -2 | head -1; done | sort | uniq | wc -l
>>> 139
>>> still too many.. Or is it OK?
>> Hmm - that becomes a tradeoff in length of the series (where individual
>> patches may be reviewed fast, but where the overall process may be
>> bogged down by sheer length), vs. length of individual emails (where the
>> email itself is daunting, but as the review is mechanical and done by
>> automation, it becomes a matter of spot-checking if we trust that the
>> automation was done correctly).  You can probably group it in fewer
>> patches, by joining smaller patches across a couple of subsystems.  It's
>> an art form, there's probably several ways to do it that would work, and
>> it comes down to a judgment call on how much work you want to do to try
>> and reduce other's work in reviewing it.  Maybe even an off-hand split
>> of gathering files until you reach about 500 or so lines per diff.  I
>> wish I had easier advice on how to tackle this sort of project in the
>> way that will get the fastest response time.
>>>>>    vl.c                                          |  13 +-
>>>>>    scripts/coccinelle/auto-propagated-errp.cocci |  82 +++++++
>>>>>    319 files changed, 2729 insertions(+), 4245 deletions(-)
>>>>>    create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/auto-propagated-errp.cocci
>>>> The diffstat is huge, but promising.
>> We also learned in reviews of 7/9 that the diffstat here is misleading,
>> the number of insertions will definitely be increasing once the
>> Coccinelle script is fixed to insert the macro in more functions, but
>> hopefully it's still a net reduction in overall lines.
> No hope for us: with fixed script I now see
> 919 files changed, 6425 insertions(+), 4234 deletions(-)

Also, I have add include "qapi/error.h" to files, where errp only passed
to called functions (or for functions, which are not simple stubs):

# git diff | grep '+#include' | wc -l

Best regards,

More information about the integration mailing list