[alsa-devel] [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Mon Sep 12 15:16:25 CEST 2016
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Constify local structures.
> > >
> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > Just my two cents but:
> >
> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
> > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
> > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
> > somehow.
> >
> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
>
> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
you should explain why.
> submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages
> give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the
> structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover
> letter, which will not be committed anyway.
I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process
*that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to
explain that but it depends on the context).
I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this
particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can
be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient.
Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals.
> julia
/Jarkko
More information about the Alsa-devel
mailing list