On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 12:35:49 +0100, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think part of the issue is that the script reports a WARNING > > How much does this information influence really the stress tolerance > and change resistance (or acceptance) for the presented collateral evolution? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource.cocci -ENOPARSE. > > for something that is definitely correct code, > > Can related software improvement possibilities be taken into account > again under other circumstances? These patches provide no improvement whatsoever. As pointed out, they mostly introduce bugs. > > and could instead be simply toned down. > > Does this view mean that the mentioned script for the semantic patch language > should get another chance for integration? Providing Coccinelle scripts that scream about perfectly valid code is pointless, and the result is actively harmful. If said script was providing a correct semantic patch instead of being an incentive for people to churn untested patches that span the whole tree, that'd be a different story. But that's not what this is about. > > Anyway, FWIW: > > > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Would you like to share any more constructive feedback? No. > Will similar source file mass updates be better picked up > by other well-known Linux developers? Certainly not for the subsystems I maintain. M. -- Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
