On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 19:28 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:17:37AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 17:21 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > > > > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files. > > > > > > > > and hal and include and os_dep > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files. > > > The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the > > > number of patch per patchset > > > > > It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal > > > could be huge > > > > That's really not a significant issue. > > Simplicity in review is also important. > > Mechanization of patch creation can reduce review efforts. > > Maybe I wrongly associated simplicity with patch dimensions, but maybe > for patches this simple have expert reviewers some tool for > automatic review? Coccinelle is a relatively trusted tool and using it as a scripting mechanism where the script is shown as part of the commit message gives confidence that the change it produces can be applied without significant doubt. To improve confidence that any change that does not have an output object code delta, comparing the object code produced before and after the change is useful. Showing that the code has been both compiled and compared in the commit message also improves confidence that the change is useful and can be applied.
