[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/18] xfstests: Redo option parsing

To: Philip White <pwhite@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] xfstests: Redo option parsing
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:13:38 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130314130611.6A23953C7F62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20130314130611.6A23953C7F62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 06:06:11AM -0700, Philip White wrote:
> From: Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx>
> This is a rebasing & resubmit of a dchinner patch.  His comments on the
> original:
> -----------------
> The option parise in a messy loop of option parsing and actions on
> secondary arguments. Turn it into something much neater and esay to
> understand rather than a mess of temporary variables and tortured
> logic...
> -----------------
> This required some deviation owing to the decision made in patch #2 of this
> series.

If all the check specific option parsing is moved to check (like my
series did), then there isn't any code left in the common file.

All i see here is a reflection of SGI's obstinate refusal to remove
bitrotted code. If we are removing all the users of this code except
one, it is no longer shared code and, as such, abstractions for
sharing shoul dbe removed.

If some new script comes along that uses the *same option parsing*
as check, then we can consider it shared code again. However, i
can't see this ever happening, so the code should be moved the check
script where it can be more fully integrated and simplified.

So, really, all is see from trying to retain the common file like
this is an obstinate refusal to let go of bitrotted code and to
re-abstract and re-implement it properly....


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>