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. >> >> >>>>> 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
