20.11.2019 14:34, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:50:54 +0000 > Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy<vsement...@virtuozzo.com> 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. >> >> >> If no objections during a week, I'll start that plan, hope someone will >> support it. >> > Hi Vladimir, > > I support your plan and I will help this to go forward for 9pfs, PowerPC > and XIVE. I'll start with pushing the preparatory patch for 9pfs to my > 9p-next branch right away. > > [RFC v5 009/126] 9pfs: well form error hint helpers > > Cheers,
Thank you Greg! -- Best regards, Vladimir
