[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:30:24 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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.

"As usual" doesn't suffice. It must be "almost perfect" for such a
code refactoring. The damage by a overseen mistake is much higher
than the merit by such a patch.

If the patch is about fixing a bug, it's a different story.
Or it's about a really trivial change (e.g. your sizeof() conversion
patches), I can check and apply easily. But for other changes with
more lines, it makes little sense. Again, the risk of breakage
increases while the merit is negligible.

> > -- 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?

Yes, loudly.

I stop at this point, as the rest is simply a repeat from the previous



 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 08:47    [W:0.112 / U:3.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site