On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 02:26:33PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"?
setup_irq() was used in olden days, nowadays request_irq(). Though there
are exceptions of trying to use setup_irq() even recently, but there has
been pushback when people notice it like Thomas had done [1], and i saw
recently one in mips smp support series & suggested not to use it (that
code iiuc they had it out of upstream for a long time).
So existence of setup_irq() in general i have considered to be legacy
code.
I see. You're defining "legacy code" in this case to mean code that uses a
deprecated API, that needs to be modernized.
And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide
semantic patch?
The way i came up with this series is that while trying to understand
irq internals, came across [1], so then decided to do cleanup and i
thought scripting it would make it easy & also had been wanting to get
familiar w/ cocci, so decided to try it, but also realized that i cannot
fully automate it (Julia said my patch is okay, so i felt cocci cannot
fully automate w/o investing considerable effort in cocci), so even w/
this v2, there are lot of manual changes, though cocci made it easier.
I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I
misunderstood.
And Thomas suggested to make improvements over script generated o/p [2]
and only consider scripting as an initial first step. So the way i am
making changes now is to take suggestions from Thomas to be applied
treewide, at the same time also take care of suggestions from
arch/subsytem maintainer/mailing list in the relevant patches, since
arch maintainers are the ones owning it.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I had assumed that your intention was to find a consensus so that the
whole tree could be consistently and automatically improved. My mistake.
Sometimes had a feeling as though the changes in this series is akin to
cutting the foot to fit the shoe ;), but still went ahead as it was
legacy code, easier & less error prone. But now based on the overall
feedback, to proceed, i had to change.
Not based on feedback from me I hope -- I have no veto in this case, as
you can see from MAINTAINERS.
Regards
afzal
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87sgiwma3x.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
