[Virtio-fs] [PATCH] cleanup: Tweak and re-run return_directly.cocci
Markus Armbruster
armbru at redhat.com
Tue Nov 22 13:26:54 UTC 2022
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 08:58, Markus Armbruster <armbru at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I don't think complete detailed review is necessary or even sensible.
>>
>> Review should start with the Coccinelle script:
>>
>> // replace 'R = X; return R;' with 'return X;'
>> @@
>> identifier VAR;
>> expression E;
>> type T;
>> identifier F;
>> @@
>> T F(...)
>> {
>> ...
>> - T VAR;
>> ... when != VAR
>>
>> - VAR = (E);
>> - return VAR;
>> + return E;
>> ... when != VAR
>> }
>>
>> What could go wrong? Not a rhetorical question!
>
> 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(-)
This will be v2.
More information about the Virtio-fs
mailing list