Re: [RFC v5 000/126] error: auto propagated local_err

[Eric Blake]

On 11/20/19 3:50 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Okay...
>
> I think that:
>
> 1. A lot of efforts (not only my, I think reviewing is already exceeded 
> generation efforts)
>     are made, it would be sad to lose them.
>
> 2. It's safe enough to apply only part of generated patches: we just fix 
> error_abort/error_fatal
>     in more popular subsystems, what's wrong with that? Why not to cover 80% 
> cases by 20% efforts?
>
> 3. It's obviously impossible to merge the whole series. A lot of time passed, 
> series diverges.
>
>
> So I propose the following plan:
>
> 1. I resend small separate series of preparation patches per maintainer. They 
> are good anyway.
>
> 2. We commit patch with macro (changing MUST to SHOULD in documentation) and 
> coccinelle script.
>      (or that may be combined with the first series from [3.])
>
> 3. When one of preparations taken to maintainer's tree, I send generated 
> patches for
>      its maintainer.

I'd still prefer waiting for direction from Markus.  We've been tied up 
by other things (KVM Forum, 4.2 release), but now that we are in freeze, 
this is actually a GOOD time for Markus to finally get back to this 
series, and there is going to be less rebasing needed if we can apply 
the entire cleanup right as 5.0 development opens in a couple of weeks.


> If no objections during a week, I'll start that plan, hope someone will support 
> it.


--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org