On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, brian m. carlson
<sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The bigger issue is the assumptions in the code base that assume a given
> hash size.
Absolutely. And I think those are going to be the "real" patches.
I actually saw your status report about
"After another 27 commits, I've got it down from 1244 to 1119."
when I had just started, and I applauded the approach, but the numbers
made me go "ugh, that sounds painful".
What I actually wanted to do was to write a coccinelle script to
automate it, but it wasn't entirely obvious, and I started out just
doing it with "sed" and hand-fixing, and it got tedious byt then I had
done X% and just kept going.
I think an automated script that also guarantees that no code
generation could possibly change would have been lovely. We do that
over the kernel occasionally, where those kinds of patches that are
four thousand insertions/deletions in size are called "last Tuesday".
So my approach was really just brute-force and stupid, I admit it. I'm
not proud of the patch either.
It might be one of those "bandaid removal moments" - get it over and
done with and just rip that thing off ;)
So the patch is
216 files changed, 4174 insertions(+), 4080 deletions(-)
and about 27k lines and 950kB total size.
The list limits are apparently much lower than that, but I'll happily
send it to people in private.
Linus