Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:23:05PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that
>>>> lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man!
>>> Shouted function names is not exactly Linux code style at least.
>> well, *shrug* I have both versions, Nathan can take his pick :)
>> honestly, one-liner static inlines isn't exactly linux code style either,
>> the typechecking is nice.
>> I guess I shouldn't have said "Nathan liked this better" - I think he was
>> pragmatic about the scope of the change.
> Right, its more that we don't have a great track record at the moment
> of not introducing regressions with these cleanups (including myself),
> so I'm becoming more reluctant to do sweeping changes across the whole
> codebase. Smaller, specific, and obviously-correct things are less
> likely to introduce issues, so if we can achieve basically the same
> thing while churning the code less, I'm all for it.
Sam on his previous project had to do significant cleanup/macro
changes and wrote some tools to help him do post-preprocessor
comparisons to really look at what had changed. I'm not sure how
generic these tools are, but worth considering.