Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Convert -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 to just -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 13:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:32 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > What does it take for this sort of patch to be applied by you?
> > 
> > The basic rule tends to be: "normal channels".
> []
> > I pulled from Gustavo earlier today to add a few more expected switch
> > fall-through's, I guess I can take this Makefile change directly.
> 
> Thanks. It's simple enough.
> 
> There are classes of patches generated by scripts that have
> no real mechanism to be applied today.
> 
> For instance: global coccinelle scripted changes to use stracpy
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.DEB.2.21.1907251747560.2494@hadrien/
> 
> and trivial scripted changes to MAINTAINERS
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6482e6546dc328ec47b07dba9a78a9573ebb3e56.camel@perches.com/
> 
> that are basically impossible to be applied by anyone but you.
> 
> Otherwise there are hundreds of little micro patches most of
> which would not otherwise be applied.
> 
> There should be some process available to get these treewide
> or difficult to keep up-to-date and apply patches handled.
> 
> I believe these sorts of scripted patches should ideally
> be handled immediately before an RC1 so other trees can be 
> synchronized in the simplest way possible.

Hey Stephen

Question for you about a possible -next process change.

Would it be reasonable to have some mechanism to script
treewide patches to generate and apply after Andrew Morton's
mmotm patches are applied to -next?

This could allow treewide scripted patches to have
compilation and test coverage before possibly being
applied to Linus' tree.

What would be necessary to allow this?