There is a general source code transformation pattern involved. So I find that it is systematic.
But I did not dare to develop a script variant for the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) which can handle all special use cases as a few of them are already demonstrated in this tiny patch series.
Then you're doing everything by hands,
I am navigating through possible changes around the pattern “Use common error handling code” mostly manually so far.
and can be wrong
Such a possibility remains as usual.
-- that's the heart of the problem.
There might be related opportunities for further improvements. Do you trust adjustments from an evolving tool more than my concrete contributions?
The risk is bigger than the merit by applying the patch.
I suggest to reconsider this view.
Would you dare to follow any of the presented arguments?
So, just prove that your patch doesn't break anything.
Which kind of information would you find sufficient for a “prove”?
Doesn't matter whether it's a test with real hardware or with systematic checks.
I assume that your development concerns matter more in this case.
Once when it's confirmed, we can apply it.
I am curious if other contributors will become interested to confirm something.
A very simple rule,
It might occasionally look simpler than it is in “special cases”.
and this will be valid for most of other subsystems, too.
The response is also varying there as usual.
A few update suggestions from the discussed pattern were integrated (also by you) already. Would you like to continue with similar support in any ways?
Regards, Markus