[Cocci] [PATCH] compat/compat-drivers/linux-next: fb skip_vt_switch

[julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall)]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >> >     -      info->skip_vt_switch = true;
> >> >     +      fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info);
> >> >
> >> > So we'd then have to just add this static inline change for each new driver...
> >> > There may be a way to get SmPL to do this for us...
> >
> > @@
> > type of info  *info;
> > @@
> >
> > -      info->skip_vt_switch = true;
> > +      fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info);
> >
> > for whatever the type of info is.
>
> Thanks Julia! I'll be sure to try to add this to compat-drivers if the
> upstream fb patch is not accepted. If it is accepted we would not need
> this at all!
>
> > Then I guess there would be a similar rule for the false case?
>
> Nope, see that's the proactive strategy taken by the static inline and
> hence the patch. compat would have a static inline for both cases, and
> for the false case it'd be a no-op. If accepted upstream though then
> we would not need any changes for this collateral evolution. However
> *spotting* these collateral evolutions and giving you SmPL for them as
> a proactive strategy might be good given that if these type of patches
> are indeed welcomed upstream we'd then be able to address these as
> secondary steps. If they are not accepted then indeed we'd use them to
> backport that collateral evolution through both compat (adds the
> static inlines) and compat-drivers (the SmPL).

Probably I am missing something, since I haven't looked at the code in
detail, bu wouldn't it be nicer to have a function call for the false
case, if there is a function call for the true case?  In looking at the
code, one could wonder why things are not done in a parallel way.

julia