Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Thu Nov 16 2017 - 14:32:51 EST
>> There is a general source code transformation pattern involved.
>> So I find that it is systematic.
>> But I did not dare to develop a script variant for the semantic patch
>> language (Coccinelle software) which can handle all special use cases
>> as a few of them are already demonstrated in this tiny patch series.
> Then you're doing everything by hands,
I am navigating through possible changes around the pattern
âUse common error handling codeâ mostly manually so far.
> and can be wrong
Such a possibility remains as usual.
> -- that's the heart of the problem.
There might be related opportunities for further improvements.
Do you trust adjustments from an evolving tool more than
my concrete contributions?
> The risk is bigger than the merit by applying the patch.
I suggest to reconsider this view.
Would you dare to follow any of the presented arguments?
> So, just prove that your patch doesn't break anything.
Which kind of information would you find sufficient for a âproveâ?
> Doesn't matter whether it's a test with real hardware
> or with systematic checks.
I assume that your development concerns matter more in this case.
> Once when it's confirmed, we can apply it.
I am curious if other contributors will become interested to confirm something.
> A very simple rule,
It might occasionally look simpler than it is in âspecial casesâ.
> and this will be valid for most of other subsystems, too.
The response is also varying there as usual.
A few update suggestions from the discussed pattern were integrated
(also by you) already.
Would you like to continue with similar support in any ways?