spatch for 64-bit e2fsprogs (was Re: Fix device too big bug in mainline?)

[Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:22:09PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 
> I also would greatly prefer it if people who submit patches to me obey
> basic patch and code formatting guidelines.  Things like this are
> really uncool:
> 
> -				fs->group_desc[i].bg_free_blocks_count =
> -					free_array[i];
> +				ext2fs_bg_free_blocks_count_set(fs, i, free_array[i])
> +					;

Ah, that's left over from an spatch bug that Julia Lawall (cc'd)
kindly fixed immediately after I reported it.  It won't happen if you
use the current spatch.  My apologies for missing this one during
review!

I think spatch could probably also wrap lines automatically when
making semantic patches - Julia?

I'm curious what you think of this proposal: Redo all the foo() ->
foo2() patches in the entire 64-bit series as a semantic patches.
This would also fix this kind of cut and paste bug:

+                               ext2fs_bg_flag_clear (fs, i, EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT);
+                               ext2fs_bg_flag_clear (fs, i, EXT2_BG_INODE_UNINIT);

I fixed several of these in the existing 64-bit code when I took it
over, so I assume more lurk undiscovered and would be revealed if we
redid them with spatch.

Julia, would you and/or your students be interested in helping?  I
think you're running out of bugs in the kernel and e2fsprogs would be
another excellent showcase for spatch/Coccinelle. :)

-VAL