On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 09:47 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 02:37:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

As I have suggested a few times, better still
would be to have a mechanism for scripted patches
applied possibly as single treewide patch.

Likely applied only at an -rc1.

The stated negatives to a treewide mechanism
have been difficulty to backport to -stable.

Any time we do a massive, disruptive change to the code base, it's
going to cause problems to -stable.  It means that bug fix patches
won't necessarily auto-apply, and some will require manual fixups
afterwards

That's mostly a tools problem than a real problem.

Given that this change doesn't really fix any bugs, I'd have to ask
the question --- is it *worth* it?  We really need to apply a certain
amount of cost/benefit analysis around this.

If it were really important, the thing we could do is to apply a
single treewide patch at some point after the merge window.  I'd
suggest after -rc2, myself, but reasonable people can differ.  And
then, if it were *really* important we could run the same script on
the stable kernels.

But for changing "/* fallthrough */" to "fallthrough;"

Does this ***really*** matter?

That depends a bit on whether clang is your
compiler of choice.

Why are we tying ourselves up in knots
trying to do this all at once?

Discretely or treewide, all at once or done over time,
the impact problem to backports is the same.



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel