lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT_TRACE logs in core/*
    On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
    > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
    > > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files.
    >
    > and hal and include and os_dep

    Hi,

    I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files.
    The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the
    number of patch per patchset

    >
    > >
    > > This is the first of a series aimed at removing RT_TRACE macro.
    > >
    > > The whole private tracing system is not tied to a configuration
    > > symbol and the default behaviour is _trace nothing_. It's verbose
    > > and relies on a private log level tracing doomed to be
    > > removed.
    >
    > It's nice, but individual patches per file done by hand are difficult
    > to review because you are interleaving removal patches with cleanup
    > patches.
    >
    > I believe this should be a patch series with a single patch to remove
    > all RT_TRACE macro uses using coccinelle and then use separate patches
    > to do whatever cleanups around these removals you want to do.

    It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal
    could be huge

    >
    > All of these below should be done for all files in drivers/staging/rtl8723bs
    > at once instead of submitting per-file patches.
    >
    > IMO something like:
    >
    > Cover-letter: Explain why you are doing this
    > Patch 1 of N: Remove all RT_TRACE macro uses using a coccinelle script
    > and include the coccinelle script in the commit message
    > Patch 2 of N: Remove commented out RT_TRACE uses
    > Patch 3 of N: Remove RT_TRACE macro definition
    > Patch 4 of N: Cleanup coccinelle generated {} uses, if/else braces and
    > the now unnecessary if tests around the RT_TRACE removals
    > Patch 5 of N: Cleanup whitespace
    > Patcn x of N: Whatever else related to these RT_TRACE sites...
    >
    > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c845d8ea7d0d8e7a613471edb53d780d660142a9.camel@perches.com/
    >
    > Using a sequence like the above would be much easier to review and
    > would be a significant shorter patch set.
    >

    moreover every non RT_TRACE deletion patch (clean up patch) is near
    to the contextual deletion patch (parent patch or grand-parent)

    but I do not have experience in code reviewing, so I will do like you
    say. Maybe I wait for other opinions, but what you say is good and
    elegant.

    thank you,

    fabio

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-04-03 17:22    [W:4.319 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site