Am Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, 21:08:17 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > On 24/11/2022 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 08:58:41PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > >> Am Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, 20:52:33 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 05:22:01PM +0000, Prabhakar wrote: > >>>> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Introduce ALTERNATIVE_3() macro. > >>> > >>> Bit perfunctory I think! There's a lovely comment down below that would > >>> make for a better commit message if you were to yoink it. > >>> Content looks about what I'd expect to see though. > >> > >> Also both the comment on the original ALTERNATIVE_2 and the new ALTERNATIVE_3 > >> should probably be merged into a single comment explaining this once for all > >> ALTERNATIVE_x variants. > >> > >> Especially with the dma stuff, I'm pretty sure we'll get at least an ALTERNATIVE_4 > >> if not even more ;-) . So we defnitly don't want to repeat this multiple times. > > > > Oh I can promise you that there'll be a #4 ;) I do find the comment's > > wording to be quite odd though.. > > > >> + * A vendor wants to replace an old_content, but another vendor has used > >> + * ALTERNATIVE_2() to patch its customized content at the same location. In > > > > In particular this bit about "at the same location" does not make all > > that much sense. What "at the same location" means in this context > > should be expanded on imo. Effectively it boils down to someone else is > > already replacing the same things you want to replace - it's just the > > word "location" that might make sense if you're an old hand but not > > otherwise? > > Or maybe I am just biased because I tried to explain this to someone > recently and the language in the comments didn't make sense to them, > and anyone meddling with this code should be able to understand it? When I first looked at the whole alternatives / patching thing, the whole thing looked like dark magic to me ;-) . But yeah, the comment here, but also the original one above ALTERNATIVE_2 could use improvements to explain better what it tries to do. > >> + * this case, this vendor can create a new macro ALTERNATIVE_3() based > > > > Also, using the word "can". Is it not a "must" rather than a "can", > > since this stuff needs to be multiplatform? > > > >> + * on the following sample code and then replace ALTERNATIVE_2() with > >> + * ALTERNATIVE_3() to append its customized content. > > > > > >
