>> There is a general source code transformation pattern involved. >> So I find that it is systematic. >> >> But I did not dare to develop a script variant for the semantic patch >> language (Coccinelle software) which can handle all special use cases >> as a few of them are already demonstrated in this tiny patch series. > > Then you're doing everything by hands, I am navigating through possible changes around the pattern “Use common error handling code” mostly manually so far. > and can be wrong Such a possibility remains as usual. > -- that's the heart of the problem. There might be related opportunities for further improvements. Do you trust adjustments from an evolving tool more than my concrete contributions? > The risk is bigger than the merit by applying the patch. I suggest to reconsider this view. Would you dare to follow any of the presented arguments? > So, just prove that your patch doesn't break anything. Which kind of information would you find sufficient for a “prove”? > Doesn't matter whether it's a test with real hardware > or with systematic checks. I assume that your development concerns matter more in this case. > Once when it's confirmed, we can apply it. I am curious if other contributors will become interested to confirm something. > A very simple rule, It might occasionally look simpler than it is in “special cases”. > and this will be valid for most of other subsystems, too. The response is also varying there as usual. A few update suggestions from the discussed pattern were integrated (also by you) already. Would you like to continue with similar support in any ways? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
