On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:22:09PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > I also would greatly prefer it if people who submit patches to me obey > basic patch and code formatting guidelines. Things like this are > really uncool: > > - fs->group_desc[i].bg_free_blocks_count = > - free_array[i]; > + ext2fs_bg_free_blocks_count_set(fs, i, free_array[i]) > + ; Ah, that's left over from an spatch bug that Julia Lawall (cc'd) kindly fixed immediately after I reported it. It won't happen if you use the current spatch. My apologies for missing this one during review! I think spatch could probably also wrap lines automatically when making semantic patches - Julia? I'm curious what you think of this proposal: Redo all the foo() -> foo2() patches in the entire 64-bit series as a semantic patches. This would also fix this kind of cut and paste bug: + ext2fs_bg_flag_clear (fs, i, EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT); + ext2fs_bg_flag_clear (fs, i, EXT2_BG_INODE_UNINIT); I fixed several of these in the existing 64-bit code when I took it over, so I assume more lurk undiscovered and would be revealed if we redid them with spatch. Julia, would you and/or your students be interested in helping? I think you're running out of bugs in the kernel and e2fsprogs would be another excellent showcase for spatch/Coccinelle. :) -VAL -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
