Arend van Spriel wrote on Fri, Jul 13, 2018: > The patch adding that script contains a good motivation, but I would want to > see that in commit message of every patch or at least the gist of > it. In retrospect, I definitely agree - I was happy I got coccinelle to work and a bit too tired to make rationale decisions when I sent the serie as it's not a kind of thing I'm used to. For the patch you ack'd, in particular, there would be no gcc warning in the first place because the source string's size is not known at compile time and for some reason gcc does not mind silent truncation in that case, so the usefulnes of the patch is fairly limited in the first place (it's possibly simpler/good to aim for consistency but that's about it). I however didn't take the time to make that analysis for all the patches. > especially as that script is not in the kernel tree yet. I did think about that, but wasn't sure what was appropriate in this case. I now think it would have been better to save everyone a dozen of mails and wait for the coccinelle patch to land first; but it's a bit late for regret :) I'll only catter after the coccinelle script until it lands, so if anyone is inclined to take one of the rest as they are, great, but otherwise feel free to ignore them for now. (In particular, this very patch should not remove the first comment here, as pointed out by Himanshu Jha in reply to the first patch) Thanks for taking the time to give feedback, -- Dominique Martinet
