From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753153AbdK1OxK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:53:10 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37613 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752195AbdK1OxI (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:53:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:53:06 +0100
Message-ID: <s5h7euaqwtp.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
In-Reply-To: <f7189a7c-3b07-e976-ac18-6143365bbd21@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <d98a2685-ddf9-1cba-839a-d12c5ff8d3ba@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hefoy16xg.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <dfa99045-f213-3dad-b1f4-2e90eb38ddbd@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5h7euq9hqt.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <24f8c777-1eb4-e7e7-9371-79f32700c9dc@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hbmjmluba.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <2cbef557-5f89-c630-e108-14ef2ce6b41a@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5h4lpelqfm.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <1547a4c2-5b70-e3a3-b482-d28c538e615c@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hy3mqr5v9.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <c2b7543c-cd2c-f7f6-98f3-23e2ca6f8b90@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hshcyr2on.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <539adde3-a713-721f-2a0d-1d1ef925fb86@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hpo82r1s5.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <9a9348f4-d059-de28-1445-0189b7fb0ba3@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hlgiqr0ad.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <3b7b24bd-4bdf-752e-1a62-cc71e9152acc@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5hbmjmqxzs.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <bafa4437-2aaf-245d-da60-2353ca5debab@users.sourceforge.net>
        <s5h8teqqxhx.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <f7189a7c-3b07-e976-ac18-6143365bbd21@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:44:07 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> How would such a setting influence my trust level for your subsystem maintenance?
> > 
> > Give the test result before speaking too much.
> 
> Which concrete data do you expect here?

Depends on the result.  The bottom line is that you run your patched
kernel on the real hardware or equivalent (VM or emulation) for the
device you touched.

> > It's already way too contra-productive, just chatting.
> 
> I got an other view.
> 
> I hope that we can achieve a better common understanding also in this case.

Hopefully, if you stop asking another new question for each word.

> > Show the result at first.
> 
> Which one would you like to compare exactly?

Run your patched kernel and the driver code on the real machine with
the corresponding device.  Show the device is running.  That's the
very first step.  Then follow the more detailed tests, but it depends
on the subsystem.


Takashi