Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Markus Elfring]

> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret)
> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit.

I suggest to improve also this commit message.

* Please reduce uncertainty.

* An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it?
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151

* Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation “Reduce the lock scope”?

* Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Lukasz Luba]

On 5/12/20 12:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret)
>> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit.
> 
> I suggest to improve also this commit message.
> 
> * Please reduce uncertainty.
> 
> * An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it?
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151
> 
> * Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation “Reduce the lock scope”?
> 
> * Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Thank you Markus for providing to Bernard helpful suggestions.

@Bernard please read the link above and send v3

Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ
handler' for the subject header would be better.
Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a
bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value or
printing.

Regards,
Lukasz

Re:Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Bernard]

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Date: 2020-05-12 19:56:49
To:  Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com>,linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc:  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,opensource.kernel@vivo.com,Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area>
>
>On 5/12/20 12:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret)
>>> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit.
>> 
>> I suggest to improve also this commit message.
>> 
>> * Please reduce uncertainty.
>> 
>> * An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it?
>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151
>> 
>> * Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation “Reduce the lock scope”?
>> 
>> * Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Markus
>> 
>
>Thank you Markus for providing to Bernard helpful suggestions.
>
>@Bernard please read the link above and send v3
>
>Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ
>handler' for the subject header would be better.
>Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a
>bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value or
>printing.
>
>Regards,

>Lukasz

Sure, thank you both Markus & Lukasz for your helpful suggestions, I will read the content
of the link in detail and use that preferred format in my future subsequent submissions.

Regards,
Bernard

Re: [v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Markus Elfring]

> Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ
> handler' for the subject header would be better.
> Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a
> bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value
> or printing.

Do you tend to prefer smaller lock scopes for nicer run time characteristics?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Lukasz Luba]

On 5/12/20 1:32 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ
>> handler' for the subject header would be better.
>> Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a
>> bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value
>> or printing.
> 
> Do you tend to prefer smaller lock scopes for nicer run time characteristics?

Yes and I am probably not the only one. Of course it consumes time, to
make and test this kind of changes (so it must be in my current scope
of work).

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>