Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Subject: [RFC] clang tooling cleanups | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:51:57 -0700 |
| |
(Adding Stephen Rothwell)
On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 12:33 -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > On 10/27/20 11:42 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > (cutting down the CC list to something more intimate)
[]
> I am interested in treewide fixes.
As am I, but here the definition of fixes is undefined though. Whitespace / style changes and other bits that don't change generated object code aren't considered fixes by many maintainers.
> Cleaning them up (maybe me not doing all the patches) and keeping them clean. > > The clang -Wextra-semi-stmt -fixit will fix all 10,000 problems
I rather doubt there are 10K extra semicolons in the kernel source tree. Is there a proposed diff/patch posted somewhere?
> This clang tidy fixer will fix only the 100 problems that are 'switch() {};' > > When doing a treewide cleanup, batching a bunch of fixes that are the same problem and fix > is much easier on everyone to review and more likely to be accepted.
That depends on the definition of batching.
If individual patches are sent to multiple maintainers, the acceptance / apply rate seems always < 50% and some are rejected outright by various maintainers as "unnecessary churn".
Single treewide patches are generally not applied unless by Linus. The trivial tree isn't widely used for this.
Perhaps a 'scripted' git tree could be established that is integrated into -next that would allow these automated patches to be better vetted and increase the acceptance rate of these automated patches.
> Long term, a c/i system would keep the tree clean by running the switch-semi checker/fixer. > And we can all move onto the next problem.
Good idea... I hope a scripted patches mechanism will be established.
| |