Re: [PATCH 26/26] rv/rvgen: extract node marker string to class constant

[Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 13:36 +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> > On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 08:34 -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 17:46 -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > > > > Add a node_marker class constant to the Automata class to replace the
> > > > > hardcoded "{node" string literal used throughout the DOT file parsing
> > > > > logic. This follows the existing pattern established by the init_marker
> > > > > and invalid_state_str class constants in the same class.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "{node" string is used as a marker to identify node declaration
> > > > > lines in DOT files during state variable extraction and cursor
> > > > > positioning. Extracting it to a named constant improves code
> > > > > maintainability and makes the marker's purpose explicit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Looks fine for me, thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > I wonder if we could merge this patch with 15/26 that is introducing a
> > > > very
> > > > similar change on init_marker.
> > > 
> > > The idea was to make each patch doing one thing to make the reviewer's
> > > life easier (I think I broke my own rule in a couple of patch). But if
> > > there is a strong feeling about the merge, I could merged them in a
> > > possible v2 patch series.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah I get the idea, I guess I could just pick the most obvious patches and
> > send
> > a PR to Steve before the merge window, so I can see directly if it makes sense
> > to squash them and you don't need to send them all in the v2.
> 
> Screamed victory too fast.. I tried the patches on the latest version of the
> tree (which reached already linux-next) and they're have several conflicts.
> 
> I don't have time to rebase them one by one right now, let's continue with this
> series as a whole.
> As a rule of thumb, considering these patches get first reviewed, then PR-ed to
> Steve and then to Linus, I'd favour to lower the number if possible, but feel
> free to choose where it makes sense for them to stay separate.

I created the patches on top of linux-trace/tools/for-next. Is this the
wrong branch?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gabriele
>