Re: [PATCH] chainlint.pl: Extend regexp pattern for /proc/cpuinfo on Linux SPARC

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 20, 2024, 17:23 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqbk50jt1s.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQsc4AUJ7-0v=rS8VVK9JG1+_iSwa_gWUUigs=uwYq6Lw@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> I was wondering if we want to first add the "reasonable fallback"
>> Eric mentioned ealier, and then build on top, whose result may look
>> like the attached.
>
> I'm fine with a well-focused patch which just fixes the reported
> problem; the "reasonable fallback" change can be layered atop at any
> time.

Yeah, I never suggested to do these in a single patch. Since I would think that it is easier to do and review a patch that cleans up the code and adds a reasonable fallback before adding new support for sparc or alpha (after all, such a clean-up is also for longer term maintainability---by definition, it must be easier to add new support to the result of a clean-up than the original, or it is not a clean-up), I suggested to first add such a change. What you saw was how the result of "then build on top" would have looked like.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I had a more all-inclusive change in mind. These number-of-cpu checks
> are in order from least to most costly but they are not necessarily
> mutually exclusive. As such, my thinking was that the logic would fall
> through to the next check if the preceding check produced zero or
> nonsense.

OK. All the more reason to clean-up first, then? If we pile more on top of the current structure, it would make the later clean-up more cumbersome, wouldn't it?

Thanks.