Thread (21 messages) 21 messages, 6 authors, 2017-11-08

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

From: Gustavo A. R. Silva <hidden>
Date: 2017-10-27 20:09:59
Also in: linux-hams

Hi David,

Quoting David Ranch [off-list ref]:
Hello Gustavo,

I appreciate you working on keeping up the kernel and maintaining  
some of the older feature areas like AX.25, Netrom, etc.  Other than  
auditing your code changes, can you tell me what you're changing?  
I've been attempting to find who / where does regression tests for  
the Linus kernel to potentially ADD test suites for this area.  In  
the recent past, we have seen a lot of toxicity creep into the  
kernel because no one is testing their changes and backing out this  
toxic code out of released Linux distributions takes a VERY long time.
Here you can see the patch I'm proposing to refactor some code:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10029119/

It does not add any new functionality. It's just a small function that  
helps to modularize and reduce the size of the code in the  
nr_add_node() function.

The function I'm proposing (re_sort_routes) re-sort the routes in  
quality order. It takes as arguments a pointer to the nr_node  
structure which contains the routes within and the indexes of the  
routes to re-sort.

This function also replaces a "manual" swap of the routes with a call  
to the swap macro.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
I'm willing to try and help here but I really would like to follow  
some team's guidelines of how they would like tests to be created,  
supported, etc.  Be it in VMs, containers, specific automation  
languages, etc.

--David
KI6ZHD




On 10/26/2017 10:50 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
quoted
The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c  
in order to make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected  
switch fall-throughs
in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Changes in v2:
 - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
   Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.

Changes in v3:
 - Update subject for both patches.
 - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.

Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
  net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
  net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs

 net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62  
++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help