On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:07 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "show_tree_data" is a struct that packages the necessary fields for > > "show_tree()". This commit is a pre-prepared commit for supporting > > "--format" option and it does not affect any existing functionality. > > Is the only reason this is split off from 9/9 because you're injecting a > 8/9 commit for the coccinelle rule change, and wanted to find some > logical cut-off between the two? I hope "show_tree()" and "the show_tree_format()" to share this structure, so I made this a pre-prepared and non-functional commit. After that, in the 9/9, the structure can be used directly and focus on the functionality changes. If we merge this commit with 9/9, 9/9 will contain a part of the changes that let "show_tree()" use the new structure, which has nothing to do with "show_tree_format()" actually, because we designed them to go through different execution logic. So, personally, I prefer not to mix them together. So, the commit of "show_tree_data()" originally was not for "coccinelle". The only thing that is certain is that coccinelle also should go before 9/9 I think. With regard to 8/9 and 7/9, I think the current order is OK because they're not related. > > For both this & 9/9 this seems to mostly/substantially be code I wrote > and submitted as part of > https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-patch-6.7-eac299f06ff-20211217T131635Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx; > > The convention we use in such cases is to retain the "Author" header and > just add your own Signed-off-by to patches you're modifying/splitting > up. Oops. Sorry for that, I misunderstood it before and I'll be fixed in the next path. Thanks.
