From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752493AbcACTp0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jan 2016 14:45:26 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:35787 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752454AbcACTpY (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jan 2016 14:45:24 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:45:22 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Julia Lawall , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Lior Dotan , Christopher Harrer Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging-slicoss: Replace variable initialisations by assignments in slic_if_init() Message-ID: <20160103194522.GA31644@kroah.com> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <56894D2D.1010801@users.sourceforge.net> <56895EE1.7080808@users.sourceforge.net> <20160103175816.GA21611@kroah.com> <56896591.2030208@users.sourceforge.net> <20160103182640.GA30692@kroah.com> <56896D6A.6020309@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56896D6A.6020309@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 07:50:18PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> I am a bit surprised that you do not like such source code fine-tuning. > > > > It's moving stuff around for no real reason, why would I like it? > > Can such fine-tuning result in positive effects for the run-time behaviour? If you can not benchmark and show the proof, don't even start to claim such a thing. > > Did you speed up the code in a measurable way? > > My suggestions can result in measurable differences. Show the proof please. That's the only way I will ever accept anything else from you like this. > Will it become acceptable to reduce the scope for any more variable > definitions in further function implementations? No. > > Code in staging needs to be moved out of staging, and this patch does > > nothing toward achieving that goal and it wastes people's time reviewing > > it to see if it is correct or not. > > I am curious on the ways the discussed software can evolve further. That's nice, but that's not my concern. greg k-h