Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:30:24 +0100 |
| |
>> There is a general source code transformation pattern involved. >> So I find that it is systematic. >> >> But I did not dare to develop a script variant for the semantic patch >> language (Coccinelle software) which can handle all special use cases >> as a few of them are already demonstrated in this tiny patch series. > > Then you're doing everything by hands,
I am navigating through possible changes around the pattern “Use common error handling code” mostly manually so far.
> and can be wrong
Such a possibility remains as usual.
> -- that's the heart of the problem.
There might be related opportunities for further improvements. Do you trust adjustments from an evolving tool more than my concrete contributions?
> The risk is bigger than the merit by applying the patch.
I suggest to reconsider this view.
Would you dare to follow any of the presented arguments?
> So, just prove that your patch doesn't break anything.
Which kind of information would you find sufficient for a “prove”?
> Doesn't matter whether it's a test with real hardware > or with systematic checks.
I assume that your development concerns matter more in this case.
> Once when it's confirmed, we can apply it.
I am curious if other contributors will become interested to confirm something.
> A very simple rule,
It might occasionally look simpler than it is in “special cases”.
> and this will be valid for most of other subsystems, too.
The response is also varying there as usual.
A few update suggestions from the discussed pattern were integrated (also by you) already. Would you like to continue with similar support in any ways?
Regards, Markus
| |