[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160912201450.GA8889@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:14:50 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
Tatyana Nikolova <tatyana.e.nikolova@...el.com>,
Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
Chien Tin Tung <chien.tin.tung@...el.com>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:43:58PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> > > Constify local structures.
> >> > >
> >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >> >
> >> > Just my two cents but:
> >> >
> >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
> >> > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
> >> > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
> >> > somehow.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
> >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
> >>
> >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
> >
> > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
> > you should explain why.
>
> Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and
> nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation
> that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound.
>
> Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional
> changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any
> problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build
> errors or warnings.
>
> Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about
> Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by
> Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits.
>
> You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water.
Hmm... I've been using coccinelle in cyclic basis for some time now.
My comment was oversized but I didn't mean it to be impolite or attack
of any kind for that matter.
> --
> balbi
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists