Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:26:17 +1100 (AEDT) | From | Finn Thain <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq() |
| |
On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 02:26:33PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: > > > BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"? > > setup_irq() was used in olden days, nowadays request_irq(). Though there > are exceptions of trying to use setup_irq() even recently, but there has > been pushback when people notice it like Thomas had done [1], and i saw > recently one in mips smp support series & suggested not to use it (that > code iiuc they had it out of upstream for a long time). > > So existence of setup_irq() in general i have considered to be legacy > code. >
I see. You're defining "legacy code" in this case to mean code that uses a deprecated API, that needs to be modernized.
> > And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide > > semantic patch? > > The way i came up with this series is that while trying to understand > irq internals, came across [1], so then decided to do cleanup and i > thought scripting it would make it easy & also had been wanting to get > familiar w/ cocci, so decided to try it, but also realized that i cannot > fully automate it (Julia said my patch is okay, so i felt cocci cannot > fully automate w/o investing considerable effort in cocci), so even w/ > this v2, there are lot of manual changes, though cocci made it easier. > > > I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I > > misunderstood. > > And Thomas suggested to make improvements over script generated o/p [2] > and only consider scripting as an initial first step. So the way i am > making changes now is to take suggestions from Thomas to be applied > treewide, at the same time also take care of suggestions from > arch/subsytem maintainer/mailing list in the relevant patches, since > arch maintainers are the ones owning it. >
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I had assumed that your intention was to find a consensus so that the whole tree could be consistently and automatically improved. My mistake.
> Sometimes had a feeling as though the changes in this series is akin to > cutting the foot to fit the shoe ;), but still went ahead as it was > legacy code, easier & less error prone. But now based on the overall > feedback, to proceed, i had to change. >
Not based on feedback from me I hope -- I have no veto in this case, as you can see from MAINTAINERS.
> Regards > afzal > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87sgiwma3x.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/ >
| |