[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
>> 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?

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:18    [W:0.065 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site