Re: Further software improvements around Linux sequence API?
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Mon Oct 24 2016 - 14:11:04 EST
> An experienced developer would be able to very easily spot that trying
> to optimize seq_printf() versus seq_puts() is barely going to be measurable.
Would you like to offer any incentives to use a more appropriate function
from this Linux programming interface for sequences?
> It's the sort of thing that a developer might fix while
> making other, more useful changes to a source file.
I get doubts when you expect that change possibilities with a higher
priority should and will almost always picked up before update candidates
with a lower impact.
> Well, please note that having a reputation of someone who insists on
> sending mostly junk patches (and like junk food, they may have some
> nutritive value; but that doesn't change the effect that the net
> benefit to person consuming them is marginal or negative), tends to
> give you a bad reputation, and may in fact be a hinderance towards
> your being able to attain "financial incentives".
I can not offer the “shiny gold nugget” or “pure diamond” so far directly
which is often preferred.
> If that is in fact your goal, I would gently suggest that you spend
> more time improving your skills, and learning more about higher-value
> ways you could contribute to the kernel, instead of spamming the
> kernel list with lots of low value patches.
* I could extend my source code search patterns in principle.
How many developers and software reviewers struggle with results
from existing code analysis tools?
* Will your interest occasionally grow for collateral software evolution?
> In the future if you are adding higher value improvements, and you want
> to do various cleanups, such as fixing up seq_printf -> seq_puts changes, sure.
Is this kind of feedback a contradiction at the moment when you seem to give
the impression that my software development reputation is so damaged in the
“junk food” sense that I could hardly achieve the software change mixture
which you would prefer?
Regards,
Markus