On 08/04/16 09:24, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016, Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since Jani has given us this macro, I thought I'd make use of it by
converting all existing instances of this construct with a really
simple little Coccinelle script:
@intel_gen@
expression E;
@@
<...
- INTEL_INFO(E)->gen
+ INTEL_GEN(E)
...>
I intentionally did not do this because I think it causes more trouble
than it's worth. Basically this will conflict with roughly all patches
currently in flight. Yes, I admit I did tell people to go wild, but
please let's do this piecemeal.
BR,
Jani.
The point of including the actual Cocci code in the commit message is
that then anyone who has a set of not-yet-submitted changes can apply
the Cocci script to their own codebase before attempting to rebase onto
the new version of nightly, thus eliminating from the conflicts all
those which are simply due to the patch applied to upstream.
For this reason, I'd like to recommend that anyone doing this sort of
bulk transformation with Cocci or awk or just sed should /always/
include the transformation script.
As for doing it piecemeal, what are the chances that there will ever be
a time when there are no changes in flight in, say, intel_display.c?
$ git churn drivers/gpu/drm/i915/*.c | tail -6
918 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
1027 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
1108 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
1448 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
1583 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
3290 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
Perhaps the maintainers could target one file at a time, any time it
looks like we're having a quiet period?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
