Updated the patch with the suggested changes. The last commit for the new patch is https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-November/msg01324.html. On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 2:55 PM Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 11:43 AM, Barrett J Schonefeld wrote:
I appreciate the feedback on this patch!
I will work on splitting this into multiple patches. I believe this will involve redoing much of the work because I will need to split this patch (a single commit) into many commits.
One suggestion on how to more easily split one patch into multiple patches (keeping in mind there's probably a much cleaner way of doing the same thing; this is just how I've evolved to do it):
1) make a new branch "X-v2" based off the branch "X" that has this current patch
2) "git reset HEAD^" on the new branch - this will remove the last commit from git, but leave the working copies of the file unchanged.
3) use a tool like "git meld" to interactively go through all the changes (hunks) you've made in this single commit, *un*doing the ones that aren't related to basic g_autofree conversion.
4) git add / git commit -m"convert to g_autofree"
5) "git meld X" to compare the original commit on the *old* branch to the tip of the new branch, interactively re-applying all the hunks that you had just removed.
5) git add / git commit -m"remove unnecessary cleanup labels and return variables"
Hence, I'd like to get some confirmation on how I should approach the patch.
I plan to:
1. Address the feedback on returning `-errno`, `0`, `-1`, etc. directly instead of setting the local variable, `ret`, and returning `ret`. 2. Submit a patch per file with only the g_autofree changes. 3. Submit a patch per file that removes the cleanup sections.
A couple of qualifiers:
a) changing the return values to constants will of course happen as a part of the "cleanup label removal" patch (item (3)), not on its own.
b) a recent patch from jtomko reminded me of two occasions when you *would* want a separate patch for the g_autofree changed in a single function all by itself:
ii) if that change fixes a bug (which would usually be a memory leak),
and/or
iii) if it requires any change in the logic of the function beyond simply adding "g_autofree virBlahPtr blah = NULL;" and removing the VIR_FREE(blah); at the end of the scope.
Both of these would warrant extra explanation in the commit log, and that's easier to follow if it's isolated.