Re: [PATCH] chainlint.pl: Extend regexp pattern for /proc/cpuinfo on Linux SPARC

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I was wondering if we want to first add the "reasonable fallback"
Eric mentioned ealier, and then build on top, whose result may look
like the attached.

I'm fine with a well-focused patch which just fixes the reported
problem; the "reasonable fallback" change can be layered atop at any
time.

Yeah, I never suggested to do these in a single patch.  Since I
would think that it is easier to do and review a patch that cleans
up the code and adds a reasonable fallback before adding new support
for sparc or alpha (after all, such a clean-up is also for longer
term maintainability---by definition, it must be easier to add new
support to the result of a clean-up than the original, or it is not
a clean-up), I suggested to first add such a change.  What you saw
was how the result of "then build on top" would have looked like.

I had a more all-inclusive change in mind. These number-of-cpu checks
are in order from least to most costly but they are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. As such, my thinking was that the logic would fall
through to the next check if the preceding check produced zero or
nonsense.

OK.  All the more reason to clean-up first, then?  If we pile more
on top of the current structure, it would make the later clean-up
more cumbersome, wouldn't it?

Thanks.