Re: Subject: [RFC] clang tooling cleanups

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

(Adding Stephen Rothwell)

On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 12:33 -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 10/27/20 11:42 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > (cutting down the CC list to something more intimate)

[]

> I am interested in treewide fixes.

As am I, but here the definition of fixes is undefined though.
Whitespace / style changes and other bits that don't change generated
object code aren't considered fixes by many maintainers.

> Cleaning them up (maybe me not doing all the patches) and keeping them clean.
> 
> The clang -Wextra-semi-stmt -fixit will fix all 10,000 problems

I rather doubt there are 10K extra semicolons in the kernel source tree.
Is there a proposed diff/patch posted somewhere?

> This clang tidy fixer will fix only the 100 problems that are 'switch() {};'
> 
> When doing a treewide cleanup, batching a bunch of fixes that are the same problem and fix 
> is much easier on everyone to review and more likely to be accepted.

That depends on the definition of batching.

If individual patches are sent to multiple maintainers, the
acceptance / apply rate seems always < 50% and some are rejected
outright by various maintainers as "unnecessary churn".

Single treewide patches are generally not applied unless by Linus.
The trivial tree isn't widely used for this.

Perhaps a 'scripted' git tree could be established that is integrated
into -next that would allow these automated patches to be better
vetted and increase the acceptance rate of these automated patches.

> Long term, a c/i system would keep the tree clean by running the switch-semi checker/fixer. 
> And we can all move onto the next problem.

Good idea...
I hope a scripted patches mechanism will be established.