From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965184AbdKPTcs (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:32:48 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([217.72.192.78]:52026 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936648AbdKPTbE (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:31:04 -0500 Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations To: Takashi Iwai , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Cc: Arvind Yadav , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Sakamoto , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML References: From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <24f8c777-1eb4-e7e7-9371-79f32700c9dc@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:30:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:M0jPl8n7WfrbmEK44TAodCHYv5M7s3KkqiekrsiIEFrhHBNCkmZ U/7W0wwDdK9SDe3vQKIwoFNrxsmiR8sC+koVBqrvtQ1a4yzohM2WGDVEzxX7AIPtMX3veWl rCeqgdZn0Et+8sJUWg4GdVOGhECLpOOpsuYplhhNCB3OlIQgBDHiyDJeV6gKJW01CnBUPu3 8gu9xukSUqCZ0gqHX+OKw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:nQUntueBWXE=:sNuQo+7/UITfOaZvB9wjya iSl5Uc97l3DwgrlIlnhkDEEqk7xkNsgmB02uV1zvUSdxBsdMZDTLjTNu84DZcHB3vWjGgnpBt 0kaJDvdspu9L1RqN0b1EV1R22e6KsHffZ15oxk65jL+hdiKKIrmckCm8aGxmjyPXpcrYQ4Tc0 c42GnLdHFda/5qtgSZkSAtCzKHU0Nsf94i11AO+lrzWaX0/izc47o790MC/BFVkdA9h64cCqX D+WI3eVjmsRDwQ0+JJhDrTagT4YzzWwQUDgXH3gXpFDs4rrl26TOj1mCllzyMrrJZUW9eR/d1 Tk/9kfAj7o/nGb/bsfNpLmPFsXT0CZ0ZotDQjXbQsqvFb+pASAOMiTKU6sM2wop9OImfqNt6G eWz+1mmNc969zOqfBlkaol4C3oWQJwf8TU2oR1BQ4tbZ5OIsdlRGqtcKwRB+NCBc0VuwqrTE2 CeR9hUG8xJ11s3ecmOVTl4Y6EkXvmmQHYBKoeBl9iXqbyUvBL4E/nxNblG/bJTFCwPj+7R6Z8 mIIK92GT5nTPufA1Nlyy/nLYupySOmXVToidb7NHnFBFxK1UHggOoIOYN2TNSOfknbeqr6h/T vazRrxz9tq4XAjwHILfPbEGeA1UuzaMmC+5ul+Zfa0T0wirWAcvYvYyq3S5v90QOP9Nj45Tb8 OdpB4vJ0gAS0BzsrJzezWyGHnruRQIdAsUM3TMwZQqKvwz6fHc7qCNRvXJk4OVMHLo8VfVHHo 6Z+kou9hFuYEtk3XoFg77h96KAL0tBO416DqH8Ro/SaDQ8dKUWGHLdXAyUkr4yy4Uqcoh/PXZ NSaDh/3dTjz13mBigi+q2Ne//bK+EItANtCPiOJUWziKgwebLk= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> 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? Regards, Markus