From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com [209.85.128.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C17F259E for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id w203-20020a1c49d40000b029010c706d0642so6045820wma.0 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Sfd8DudOIuGyL5rc9egOme31BdENe1jWkpbRM3j4vK4=; b=jEDVz8cl2My814T63UzgroWd+kp0KmVUAkA7sgDtHGXGaNzmczXBRY8so0VSq3gC9I TmXIUH6O+6g+HjLMoEP3uevChHVfWFlg21/wVlOEf/Hx6yReHEyK8NQO9x4egfSVi0X7 BpLJ3QDDJaDxzNYAoLPhKUbkfDwFExlsrWbmzGrKcThu2BGgCKy2HGYYJ2ehgIJRAxdv jxk3bgzC10GmReX/E0wkq5fpYR1D3erjJ0MwgWyABxQxKfK+Nd0i5liGJbQZQPB008H6 5fz4ecQQ3U907EIZQx+0cDNxzKc4aKPvi5/xGR1DpU8GDkOlhN+/jqSWWweEthKZzi63 zMGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Sfd8DudOIuGyL5rc9egOme31BdENe1jWkpbRM3j4vK4=; b=DHhJb/9jxRVrIE+u8hge89SjbjL6B9hoMF5FUUjiaJmqKg33mbrt3+bM5BDshZAFeJ gQwrRKCff9IaRndZv1EMEl245wFXNRwS4iurPiY7yLjVT+ZWVZQ+zRAwN4TxoBLxfmqp rMWZ3SnqGvxGv3WG2ptAVf1x3ewAsWup3bM9G3esYiDz9jLBZMWx8Le8cyJe+DkC+MB3 l7f/0kZAm4Q0eGWsYMYjBZz9rmFMrnPbVmZVe2HtoEyw3Dy32rXnaWfqDNcnHOX0xnPi ieIs8Tm+LZyaHdb9en5BcQ7/UCqtF2gyabWOLCeX9gtMXRpCZ4/C/Tf5iE+SweHC74u0 q28w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533w1VX8cVapPfhV/5vDcNVS8vcvgrat/wGVXgn2oTCEuKsTtuQY jrG1wLM/B11Q29CbwZSopuM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAEt0LVv6M0lFMPoOMwzxS7AjYpuF6d6KzLlofSUyjl/EAkv4Q1L4Kd3MPDM90iid9t3LZiA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a958:: with SMTP id s85mr18137514wme.4.1617463307078; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agape.jhs ([5.171.80.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v18sm20291660wru.85.2021.04.03.08.21.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 03 Apr 2021 08:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 17:21:44 +0200 From: Fabio Aiuto To: Joe Perches , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: dan.carpenter@oracle.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT_TRACE logs in core/* Message-ID: <20210403152143.GA1403@agape.jhs> References: <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files. > > and hal and include and os_dep Hi, I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files. The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the number of patch per patchset > > > > > This is the first of a series aimed at removing RT_TRACE macro. > > > > The whole private tracing system is not tied to a configuration > > symbol and the default behaviour is _trace nothing_. It's verbose > > and relies on a private log level tracing doomed to be > > removed. > > It's nice, but individual patches per file done by hand are difficult > to review because you are interleaving removal patches with cleanup > patches. > > I believe this should be a patch series with a single patch to remove > all RT_TRACE macro uses using coccinelle and then use separate patches > to do whatever cleanups around these removals you want to do. It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal could be huge > > All of these below should be done for all files in drivers/staging/rtl8723bs > at once instead of submitting per-file patches. > > IMO something like: > > Cover-letter: Explain why you are doing this > Patch 1 of N: Remove all RT_TRACE macro uses using a coccinelle script > and include the coccinelle script in the commit message > Patch 2 of N: Remove commented out RT_TRACE uses > Patch 3 of N: Remove RT_TRACE macro definition > Patch 4 of N: Cleanup coccinelle generated {} uses, if/else braces and > the now unnecessary if tests around the RT_TRACE removals > Patch 5 of N: Cleanup whitespace > Patcn x of N: Whatever else related to these RT_TRACE sites... > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c845d8ea7d0d8e7a613471edb53d780d660142a9.camel@perches.com/ > > Using a sequence like the above would be much easier to review and > would be a significant shorter patch set. > moreover every non RT_TRACE deletion patch (clean up patch) is near to the contextual deletion patch (parent patch or grand-parent) but I do not have experience in code reviewing, so I will do like you say. Maybe I wait for other opinions, but what you say is good and elegant. thank you, fabio