On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > Constify local structures. > > > > > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > > > > > Just my two cents but: > > > > > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes > > > somehow. > > > > > > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > > > All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why. > > > submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages > > give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the > > structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover > > letter, which will not be committed anyway. > > I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process > *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to > explain that but it depends on the context). > > I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this > particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can > be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. > Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals. OK, thanks for the feedback. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
