Re: [PATCH v5 06/21] perf script: Move find_scripts to browser/scripts.c

[Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:39 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:34:47PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:47 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:18 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > > > <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 06:42:37PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > > The only use of find_scripts is in browser/scripts.c but the
> > > > > > definition in builtin causes linking problems requiring a stub in
> > > > > > python.c. Move the function to allow the stub to be removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rewrite the directory iteration to use openat so that large character
> > > > > > arrays aren't needed. The arrays are warned about potential buffer
> > > > > > overflows by GCC now that all the code exists in a single C file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Introducing is_directory_at() should be done as a prep patch, as the
> > > > > rest of the patch below could end up being reverted after some other
> > > > > patch used it, making the process more difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mentioned cases like this in the past, so doing it again just for the
> > > > > record.
> > > >
> > > > This is highlighted in the commit message:
> > > > ```
> > > > Rewrite the directory iteration to use openat so that large character
> > > > arrays aren't needed. The arrays are warned about potential buffer
> > > > overflows by GCC now that all the code exists in a single C file.
> > > > ```
> > > > so without the change the code wouldn't build. The new is_directory_at
> > > > function is effectively 2 statements fstatat and S_ISDIR on the
> > > > result, it is put next to is_directory for consistency but could have
> > > > been a static function in the only C file to use it.
> > > >
> > > > For the record, patches introducing 2 line long functions can be
> > > > excessively noisy, especially in a 21 patch series. There is always
> > > > the declared but not used build error to worry about - here things
> > > > couldn't just be simply moved due to triggering a different build
> > > > error. Given the simplicity of the function here I made a decision not
> > > > to split up the work - the commit message would likely be longer than
> > > > the function. The work never intended to introduce is_directory_at but
> > > > was forced into it through a desire not to disable compiler warnings.
> > >
> > > This patch does more than just moving the code which can be easy to miss
> > > something in the middle.  I think you can move the code as is without
> > > introducing build errors and then add new changes like using openat() on
> > > top (you may separate the change out of this series).  I think it's
> > > ok to have a small change if it clearly has different semantics.
> >
> > If you are trying to bisect to find something that broke a build,
> > having commits that knowingly break the build will cause the bisect to
> > fail. The bisect will falsely fail on the known to be broken commit.
>
> I'm not understanding, AFAIK nobody is advocating for breaking
> bisection, just to first instroduce a function, then use it to avoid:
>
> 1) Introduce function foo() and use it for feature bar()
> 2) Somebody else uses function foo()
> 3) We find a justification to revert 1) but can't, since it will break
>    2) so we need to add 4) that removes bar() from 1).

Namhyung was asking that the c&p of code be 1 patch then "add new
changes like using openat() on top". That is:

patch 1: add is_directory_at - introduce the 2 line helper function
patch 2: move the code
patch 3: update the code to use is_directory_at

patch 2 is known broken as patch 3 is fixing it.

Hopefully this is clear.

Thanks,
Ian


>
> > It should be unacceptable to knowingly break the build in a commit for
> > this reason.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian