lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
    From
    Date
    > Your patches happen to modify code maintained by me.  From my
    > perspective the value of the changes made by them is marginal.

    Thanks for another bit of interesting information.


    > Nevertheless, I might take them if you made my life somewhat easier,

    I am also looking for further approaches to help you there.


    > so I've tried to tell you politely how to do that.

    This feedback is generally fine.


    > If you're not willing to do it,

    My willingness is depending on also some factors.


    > though, this is where it ends.

    I hope that a bit more clarification can improve the situation.


    > And attempts to convince me that I may not want my life to be easier
    > after all are not likely to succeed.

    We usually want that life will become more comfortable.

    I chose to contribute something to Linux source files for this purpose.
    My knowledge evolved in the way that I am using some tools for
    static source code analysis. Such advanced tools can point various
    change opportunities out. I picked a few special search patterns up.
    It happened then that hundreds of source files were found which contain
    update candidates. I am trying to inform the corresponding developers
    about improvement possibilities in affected systems.


    Further challenges are relevant then as usual.

    * Handling of the search process and their results

    * Communication between contributors


    Search patterns can occasionally be categorised as "too special".
    The software technology contains also the risk for showing "false positives".

    The reactions of code reviewers are varying between rejection and acceptance.
    Now I would like to determine again which details of the proposed changes
    have got a higher chance for acceptance.

    The discussed concrete patch series is just another example for usual
    difficulties or more interesting software development challenges.
    I hope that they can be resolved in a systematic way.
    I sent analysis results as a series of small software updates. I find
    it important to understand them also in the way that they belong to
    software design patterns. I can imagine that it is harder to recognise
    the involved patterns from the presented combination of update steps.

    Would you like to check and clarify these patterns once more
    before the desired improvements will happen (in a software area you maintain)?


    So there are further constraints to consider. My software development experience
    leaded me to a very specific kind of patch granularity here.
    My software development interest evolved also in the way that I dared
    to fiddle with the source files "drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c"
    and "drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c" yesterday.
    The consequence is that I would to publish a corresponding series
    of 30 update steps for integration into another source code repository.
    It seems that I need to wait a bit more for the next contribution attempt
    before the change acceptance will fit to such an approach.

    Regards,
    Markus

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:4.102 / U:0.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site