lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:19:55 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> >> How would you notice that a corresponding system test worked
> >> in reasonable ways?
> >
> > It needs a trust to the patch author or the tester who reported that
> > it worked.
>
> Can this aspect vary over time?

Not really.

> > The test result should be mentioned concisely.
>
> How do you think about to introduce accepted automatic test procedures?

If *you* do introduce automatic testing for *your* patches, then I
appreciate it.

> > You shouldn't rely on my system.
>
> Did this system get sufficient trust so far?

I can trust my system for my purpose.

> > The main point is your patch itself; make your patch more reliable.
>
> It seems that I can make my adjustments only a bit more interesting
> by positive review comments from other contributors
> (if you can not become convinced by the concrete source code changes).

Yes.


Takashi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 15:30    [W:0.102 / U:4.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site