From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B99D1FEAA for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751690AbcFSIuX (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:50:23 -0400 Received: from bsmtp3.bon.at ([213.33.87.17]:58987 "EHLO bsmtp3.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751497AbcFSIuW (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:50:22 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp3.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3rXSP338rjz5tlM; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5015852C0; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:50:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] object_id part 4 To: "brian m. carlson" References: <20160618221407.1046188-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Junio C Hamano , Stefan Beller , Jeff King From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <57665CC6.6070208@kdbg.org> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:50:14 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160618221407.1046188-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 19.06.2016 um 00:13 schrieb brian m. carlson: > * Adjust the Coccinelle patches to transform plain structs before > pointers to structs to avoid misconversions. This addresses the issue > that Peff caught originally. To avoid future mistakes, can you write down how "transform plain structs before pointers to structs" looks like? Is it a particular order of Coccinelle rules? Which part of the interdiff between the previous round and this round makes the difference? On a tangent, I wondered recently, why we need oidcpy() and oidclr(). After all, in place of, e.g., oidcpy(&pair->two->oid, &p->oid); oidclr(&one->oid); we can write pair->two->oid = p->oid; one->oid = null_oid; Is there a particular reason *not* to make this transition? I find the latter less cluttered with equal clarity. -- Hannes