Re: [PATCH v5 06/21] perf script: Move find_scripts to browser/scripts.c

[Namhyung Kim]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:48:01PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:39 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:34:47PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:47 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:18 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > > > > <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 06:42:37PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > > > The only use of find_scripts is in browser/scripts.c but the
> > > > > > > definition in builtin causes linking problems requiring a stub in
> > > > > > > python.c. Move the function to allow the stub to be removed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rewrite the directory iteration to use openat so that large character
> > > > > > > arrays aren't needed. The arrays are warned about potential buffer
> > > > > > > overflows by GCC now that all the code exists in a single C file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Introducing is_directory_at() should be done as a prep patch, as the
> > > > > > rest of the patch below could end up being reverted after some other
> > > > > > patch used it, making the process more difficult.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mentioned cases like this in the past, so doing it again just for the
> > > > > > record.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is highlighted in the commit message:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Rewrite the directory iteration to use openat so that large character
> > > > > arrays aren't needed. The arrays are warned about potential buffer
> > > > > overflows by GCC now that all the code exists in a single C file.
> > > > > ```
> > > > > so without the change the code wouldn't build. The new is_directory_at
> > > > > function is effectively 2 statements fstatat and S_ISDIR on the
> > > > > result, it is put next to is_directory for consistency but could have
> > > > > been a static function in the only C file to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the record, patches introducing 2 line long functions can be
> > > > > excessively noisy, especially in a 21 patch series. There is always
> > > > > the declared but not used build error to worry about - here things
> > > > > couldn't just be simply moved due to triggering a different build
> > > > > error. Given the simplicity of the function here I made a decision not
> > > > > to split up the work - the commit message would likely be longer than
> > > > > the function. The work never intended to introduce is_directory_at but
> > > > > was forced into it through a desire not to disable compiler warnings.
> > > >
> > > > This patch does more than just moving the code which can be easy to miss
> > > > something in the middle.  I think you can move the code as is without
> > > > introducing build errors and then add new changes like using openat() on
> > > > top (you may separate the change out of this series).  I think it's
> > > > ok to have a small change if it clearly has different semantics.
> > >
> > > If you are trying to bisect to find something that broke a build,
> > > having commits that knowingly break the build will cause the bisect to
> > > fail. The bisect will falsely fail on the known to be broken commit.
> >
> > I'm not understanding, AFAIK nobody is advocating for breaking
> > bisection, just to first instroduce a function, then use it to avoid:
> >
> > 1) Introduce function foo() and use it for feature bar()
> > 2) Somebody else uses function foo()
> > 3) We find a justification to revert 1) but can't, since it will break
> >    2) so we need to add 4) that removes bar() from 1).
> 
> Namhyung was asking that the c&p of code be 1 patch then "add new
> changes like using openat() on top". That is:
> 
> patch 1: add is_directory_at - introduce the 2 line helper function
> patch 2: move the code
> patch 3: update the code to use is_directory_at
> 
> patch 2 is known broken as patch 3 is fixing it.
> 
> Hopefully this is clear.

Actually I don't care about the patch ordering.  My request is not
to break build and just to separate different changes out. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung