On 03/18/2011 09:11 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> The attached patch prevents that by doing RTX unsharing for all >> subsequent changes after finding a single change where unsharing has >> been explicitly requested. > > This looks like a big hammer. Why not doing it in canonicalize_change_group, > i.e. calling validate_unshare_change instead of validate_change there?
I think with the patch validate_(unshare)_change becomes easier to use. You can still decide locally if you want unsharing or not. Without taking into account in which contexts your function gets called. I consider this a big advantage. Otherwise we would have to look at every validate_change invocation in order to check if it might get called after validate_unshare_change. This sounds tedious and error-prone to me. (and probably we would end up using validate_unshare_change everywhere) -Andreas-
