Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

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
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:38:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5hlgiqr0ad.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a9348f4-d059-de28-1445-0189b7fb0ba3@users.sourceforge.net>

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:17:00 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> Which test results would you like to see or hear (!) from a real device
> >> (or a configuration in a virtual machine)?
> > 
> > I don't mind either case as long as the test works.
> 
> How would you notice that a corresponding system test worked
> in reasonable ways?

It needs a trust to the patch author or the tester who reported that
it worked.  The test result should be mentioned concisely.

> >> I find such a development tool very relevant to reduce your concerns.
> > 
> > It's about your patches, not my system.
> 
> Your own automatic test system could provide a bit of
> more confidence for some change possibilities, couldn't it?

You shouldn't rely on my system.  The main point is your patch itself;
make your patch more reliable.

Takashi