From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] ALSA: Drop superfluous PCM
	preallocation error checks
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:27:54 +0100
Message-ID: <s5hh8dhcllx.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
References: <20190205194221.25924-1-tiwai@suse.de>
 <697e40c0-d0ea-9e50-277e-bba82945c46b@perex.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
 by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7A52673DD
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 10:27:55 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <697e40c0-d0ea-9e50-277e-bba82945c46b@perex.cz>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:07:21 +0100,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> Dne 5.2.2019 v 20:42 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> > 
> > this is yet another patchset for trivial cleanups.
> > At this time, it's about the superfluous error check from
> > snd_pcm_lib_preallocate_pages() and co.  They always succeed and never
> > return a failure although many codes do the error check.  The patches
> > simply remove the error checks and finally change the function to be
> > void function.
> > 
> > The patches are applied on top of my previous NULL device fix patches,
> > so not applicable to ASoC tree, I guess.  As all these are trivial,
> > applying through my tree altogether would be simpler.
> > 
> > So, Mark, please give your ACK if the changes to ASoC drivers are OK.
> 
> With all respects, do we really need to split those elementary changes
> to single patches inside the sound tree? I would really prefer to have
> this inside one patch or maybe few patches (core/pci/asoc/others). Just
> my two cents.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>

There are both good and bad sides by this kind of fine splits.
A good side is that each reviewer can give ack for particular changes,
and it's easier to backport to older kernels.  A bad side is that it
results in more commits, and the relation between all relevant changes
isn't clear from each single commit.

I split at this time, especially about ASoC, since ASoC codes are
managed by more people than other parts in the sound tree.  But, yeah,
this could be a single patch, too.


thanks,

Takashi