From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965667AbdKPRPg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:15:36 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49303 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933811AbdKPRP0 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:15:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:15:23 +0100
Message-ID: <s5hefoy16xg.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
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: [PATCH 0/2] ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
In-Reply-To: <d98a2685-ddf9-1cba-839a-d12c5ff8d3ba@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <d98a2685-ddf9-1cba-839a-d12c5ff8d3ba@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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:05:27 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:00:18 +0100
> 
> Two update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.

Markus, I'd apply this kind of patches only when they are really
tested on the hardware, or they were converted systematically by a
script like spatch.  The reason is that you might break something (and
you already broke things in the past).  The merit by such a patch is
negligible in comparison of the risk of breakage.  These codes aren't
too bad without fixing, after all; everyone can read it pretty well as
is.

If these patches were tested on a real hardware, or at least on VM, so
that you can show that they don't break anything, I'll happily apply
them for the next (4.16) kernel.  In that case, please show that in 
the changelog explicitly.

Or, if you're really working on other real changes (no cosmetic coding
style fixes nor the code shuffling, but fixing a real bug) *and* such
a cleanup is mandatory as preliminary, it can be accepted, too.


thanks,

Takashi