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 17:27:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5hvahupdwe.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@users.sourceforge.net>

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:15:27 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > Because I didn't see any test result from you,
> 
> This is correct so far.
> 
> 
> > so I can't trust you.
> 
> This view did not hinder you to integrate some of my update suggestions
> which you found easier to handle.

The really trivial things are different.  Don't mix up things.

> >> Which test configurations would you trust finally?
> > 
> > Do test whatever like the users do.
> 
> I find such an information too unsafe for an official acceptance test.

No-testing is the worst case.

> >> How can such descriptions improve the trust situation?
> > 
> > It's the first step.  At least then I can see you did some test.
> > Currently nothing.  zero.  nada.
> 
> I am unsure if acceptable test results will ever be published for this
> software module.

Then forget about your patches.

> > How can I trust it?
> 
> * Would you dare to inspect the shown source code adjustments again?

Not unless you give some testing results.

> * How do you think about to sort the remaining update candidates
>   by their change size (or software age)?

Irrelevant.

Takashi