24.09.2019 18:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 24.09.2019 18:44, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> 24.09.2019 18:28, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 9/24/19 9:12 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> >>>>>> 3. What to do with huge auto-generated commit 07? Should I split it >>>>>> per-maintainer or per-subsystem, or leave it as-is? >>>>> >>>>> It's big. I'd split it into multiple patches (and reduce the cc - except >>>>> for the cover letter, the rest of the patches can be limited to the >>>>> actual maintainer/subsystem affected rather than everyone involved >>>>> anywhere else in the series. With the current large cc, anyone that >>>>> replies gets several mail bounces about "too many recipients"). It may >>>>> be easier to split along directory boundaries than by maintainer >>>>> boundaries. Markus has applied large tree-wide Coccinelle cleanups >>>>> before, maybe he has some advice. >>>> >>>> >>>> If split by subsystem it would be 200+ patches: >>>> git diff --name-only | while read f; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f >>>> --subsystem --no-rolestats 2>/dev/null | grep -v @ | head -1; done | sort >>>> | uniq | wc -l >>>> 205 >>>> >>>> >>>> Try to look at larger subsystem: >>>> git diff --name-only | while read f; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f >>>> --subsystem --no-rolestats 2>/dev/null | grep -v @ | tail -2 | head -1; >>>> done | sort | uniq | wc -l >>>> 139 >>>> >>>> still too many.. Or is it OK? >>> >>> Hmm - that becomes a tradeoff in length of the series (where individual >>> patches may be reviewed fast, but where the overall process may be >>> bogged down by sheer length), vs. length of individual emails (where the >>> email itself is daunting, but as the review is mechanical and done by >>> automation, it becomes a matter of spot-checking if we trust that the >>> automation was done correctly). You can probably group it in fewer >>> patches, by joining smaller patches across a couple of subsystems. It's >>> an art form, there's probably several ways to do it that would work, and >>> it comes down to a judgment call on how much work you want to do to try >>> and reduce other's work in reviewing it. Maybe even an off-hand split >>> of gathering files until you reach about 500 or so lines per diff. I >>> wish I had easier advice on how to tackle this sort of project in the >>> way that will get the fastest response time.
git diff | wc -l 48941 so, by 500 lines it would be 97 patches. Seems, we'll never be able to review this thing :( Any ideas? May be, separate big patch, which just add ERRP_FUNCTION_BEGIN() to all errp functions? >>> >>> >>>>>> vl.c | 13 +- >>>>>> scripts/coccinelle/auto-propagated-errp.cocci | 82 +++++++ >>>>>> 319 files changed, 2729 insertions(+), 4245 deletions(-) >>>>>> create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/auto-propagated-errp.cocci >>>>> >>>>> The diffstat is huge, but promising. >>> >>> We also learned in reviews of 7/9 that the diffstat here is misleading, >>> the number of insertions will definitely be increasing once the >>> Coccinelle script is fixed to insert the macro in more functions, but >>> hopefully it's still a net reduction in overall lines. >>> >> >> No hope for us: with fixed script I now see >> >> 919 files changed, 6425 insertions(+), 4234 deletions(-) >> > > Also, I have add include "qapi/error.h" to files, where errp only passed > to called functions (or for functions, which are not simple stubs): > > # git diff | grep '+#include' | wc -l > 253 > > -- Best regards, Vladimir