lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
From
Date
>> Two update suggestions were taken into account
>> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus, I'd apply this kind of patches only when they are really
> tested on the hardware,

I can not test all software and hardware combinations (so far)
for which I dare to show change possibilities.


> or they were converted systematically by a script like spatch.

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.


> The reason is that you might break something

There are the usual software development risks.


> (and you already broke things in the past).

I presented also some improvable update suggestions.

Another look on the corresponding circumstances might be interesting
for further clarification.


> The merit by such a patch is negligible in comparison of the risk of breakage.

I imagine that you might like a small object code reduction also for
this software module.


> These codes aren't too bad without fixing, after all;
> everyone can read it pretty well as is.

The script "checkpatch.pl" points implementation details out for
further considerations.


> If these patches were tested on a real hardware,

I assume that this aspect can become a big challenge.


> or at least on VM, so that you can show that they don't break anything,

Which test results would you trust (from me)?


> I'll happily apply them for the next (4.16) kernel.

Thanks for your general offer.


> Or, if you're really working on other real changes

I would find a bit more efficient exception handling useful.


> (no cosmetic coding style fixes nor the code shuffling,

I propose to apply also corresponding checkpatch cosmetic.


> but fixing a real bug)

I am trying to adjust the software situation a bit more for better
run time characteristics.


> *and* such a cleanup is mandatory as preliminary, it can be accepted, too.

There are change combinations needed for the proposed software
design direction.
Can you see positive effects here?

Regards,
Markus
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:18    [W:0.113 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site