[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC v5 000/126] error: auto propagated local_err
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC v5 000/126] error: auto propagated local_err |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:12:17 +0000 |
20.11.2019 14:34, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:50:54 +0000
> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy<address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Okay...
>>
>> I think that:
>>
>> 1. A lot of efforts (not only my, I think reviewing is already exceeded
>> generation efforts)
>> are made, it would be sad to lose them.
>>
>> 2. It's safe enough to apply only part of generated patches: we just fix
>> error_abort/error_fatal
>> in more popular subsystems, what's wrong with that? Why not to cover 80%
>> cases by 20% efforts?
>>
>> 3. It's obviously impossible to merge the whole series. A lot of time
>> passed, series diverges.
>>
>>
>> So I propose the following plan:
>>
>> 1. I resend small separate series of preparation patches per maintainer.
>> They are good anyway.
>>
>> 2. We commit patch with macro (changing MUST to SHOULD in documentation) and
>> coccinelle script.
>> (or that may be combined with the first series from [3.])
>>
>> 3. When one of preparations taken to maintainer's tree, I send generated
>> patches for
>> its maintainer.
>>
>>
>> If no objections during a week, I'll start that plan, hope someone will
>> support it.
>>
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> I support your plan and I will help this to go forward for 9pfs, PowerPC
> and XIVE. I'll start with pushing the preparatory patch for 9pfs to my
> 9p-next branch right away.
>
> [RFC v5 009/126] 9pfs: well form error hint helpers
>
> Cheers,
Thank you Greg!
--
Best regards,
Vladimir