From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753822AbdK1Q1T (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:27:19 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44358 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752452AbdK1Q1R (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:27:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:27:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Arvind Yadav , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Sakamoto , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations In-Reply-To: <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@users.sourceforge.net> References: <24f8c777-1eb4-e7e7-9371-79f32700c9dc@users.sourceforge.net> <2cbef557-5f89-c630-e108-14ef2ce6b41a@users.sourceforge.net> <1547a4c2-5b70-e3a3-b482-d28c538e615c@users.sourceforge.net> <539adde3-a713-721f-2a0d-1d1ef925fb86@users.sourceforge.net> <9a9348f4-d059-de28-1445-0189b7fb0ba3@users.sourceforge.net> <3b7b24bd-4bdf-752e-1a62-cc71e9152acc@users.sourceforge.net> <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@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: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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