On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:30:24 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > >> 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. "As usual" doesn't suffice. It must be "almost perfect" for such a code refactoring. The damage by a overseen mistake is much higher than the merit by such a patch. If the patch is about fixing a bug, it's a different story. Or it's about a really trivial change (e.g. your sizeof() conversion patches), I can check and apply easily. But for other changes with more lines, it makes little sense. Again, the risk of breakage increases while the merit is negligible. > > -- 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? Yes, loudly. I stop at this point, as the rest is simply a repeat from the previous mail. thanks, Takashi -- 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
