lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations
2017-05-06 19:00 GMT+02:00 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>:
>>> 1. I suggest to combine a few functions into fewer ones.
>>> * Do you spot any programming mistakes in these concrete cases?
>>
>> Not in the patches I skimmed.
>
> Thanks for such feedback.
>
>
>> However, your history of breaking code tells me that there have been mistakes
>> missed in the past.
>
> I admit that I had my own share of software development hiccups. I would also
> like to reduce them. But a probability remains that I will stumble on
> various glitches as usual.
>
>
>> As such, I'm not willing to take untested code from you that does not change
>> functionality at the risk of breaking something that is currently working.
>
> I imagine that the shown software refactoring will improve the affected
> sequence outputs in useful ways, won't it?
>
>
>> This is non-negotiable.
>
> It seems that we have got different views around the ways to get to acceptable
> final system test results.
>
>
>> As I said before, if you test it, I'll consider it.

As sti driver maintainer I will test those patches.
If their are ok and get some other reviewed/ack I will use them
for myself training on how push patches in drm-misc.

Benjamin

>
> I got a few doubts for this information. If you find my software development
> reputation so questionable, I assume that you would not trust any tests
> that I would try out on my own.
>
>
>> If you are unwilling to test your changes, I'm unwilling to apply them.
>
> I guess that the desired willingness will depend on a test environment
> which will be trusted by all involved parties. Other incentives might
> also matter.
>
>
>> I'm not interested in double checking all of your work, and fixing your bugs
>> for no functional benefit.
>
> Do you care for improvements in the implementation of logging functions?
>
>
>> I find less value in these patches if they're from someone seemingly
>> trying to rack up patch count.
>
> I am picking special source code search patterns up.
> The evolving development tools can point then hundreds of source files
> out which contain similar update candidates.
> I found also a few spelling weaknesses while I was looking around
> in affected source code. These tools can also increase the awareness
> for such change possibilities, can't they?
>
> Regards,
> Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-10 21:17    [W:0.054 / U:4.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site