From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:23:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1473599168-30561-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <20160911172105.GB5493@intel.com> <20160912131625.GD957@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160912131625.GD957@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Mustafa Ismail , Tatyana Nikolova , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Shiraz Saleem , Sergei Shtylyov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Chien Tin Tung , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > Constify local structures. > > > > > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > > > > > Just my two cents but: > > > > > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes > > > somehow. > > > > > > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > > > All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why. > > > submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages > > give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the > > structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover > > letter, which will not be committed anyway. > > I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process > *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to > explain that but it depends on the context). > > I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this > particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can > be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. > Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals. OK, thanks for the feedback. julia