From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:53:00 -0800 Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH v2 0/5] Support for generalized use of make C={1, 2} via a wrapper program In-Reply-To: <20171218174604.GA19056@ziepe.ca> References: <20171216094745.5e41ac51@xeon-e3> <1513476850.31439.108.camel@oracle.com> <20171218050043.GA1307@ziepe.ca> <1513576817.31581.58.camel@perches.com> <20171218174604.GA19056@ziepe.ca> Message-ID: <1513619580.31581.110.camel@perches.com> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 10:46 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:00:17PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Today when we run checkers we get so many warnings it is too hard to > > > make any sense of it. > > > > Here is a list of the checkpatch messages for drivers/infiniband > > sorted by type. > > > > Many of these might be corrected by using > > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix-inplace --types= \ > > $(git ls-files drivers/infiniband/) > > How many of these do you think it is worth to fix? > > We do get a steady trickle of changes in this topic every cycle. > > Is it better to just do a big number of them all at once? I think so. > Do you have > an idea how disruptive this kind of work is to the whole patch flow > eg new patches no longer applying to for-next, backports no longer > applying, merge conflicts? Some do complain about backport patch purity. I think that difficulty is overstated, but then again, I don't do backports very often. I think the best time for any rather wholesale change is immediately after an rc-1 so overall in-flight patch conflict volume is minimized.