All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Cc: "SF Markus Elfring" <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	"Christian Bornträger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	"Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	"Paul Gortmaker" <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	"Peter Oberparleiter" <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Sascha Silbe" <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Viktor Mihajlovski" <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 10:30:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170509103031.onbbgnuptd73j7ya@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ba03f7-d1d8-8064-7dee-b5a910ad47de@oracle.com>


* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/17 19:12, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:00:09 +0200
> > 
> > A few update suggestions were taken into account
> > from static source code analysis.
> > 
> > Markus Elfring (4):
> >   Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo()
> >   Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary()
> >   Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()
> >   Combine two function calls into one at four places
> > 
> >  arch/s390/kernel/cache.c     |  4 ++--
> >  arch/s390/kernel/processor.c |  2 +-
> >  arch/s390/kernel/sysinfo.c   | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> >  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally respond to this, but I was put on the Cc
> after all so I'll give my feedback.
> 
> I think these patches are a waste of time and a resources.

Agreed.

> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs. This is just mindless 
> code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes of code here and 
> there (I don't know; you didn't say).

... they might also be acceptable if they came from a genuine newbie who does his 
first patch, or if these patches represented genuine interest in the subsystem in 
question, by being part of a larger work that adds new features or does some 
meaningful code transformations.

They don't: they are Cocceline generated trivial patches from all around the 
kernel, and there's probably thousands of such 'problems' in the kernel - do we 
really want the churn of thousands of patches?

The cost of individual patches might be small, but their cumulative effect is 
non-trivial if we add up all the extra noise and overhad this adds to the kernel 
development flow.

> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches that 
> don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth, and mental 
> capacity for you and for everybody involved.
> 
> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally _hundreds_ 
> over the past few days, all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.
> 
> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you this 
> response:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/383 - Jens Axboe
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/262 - Johannes Thumshirn
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/12/513 - Cyrille Pitchen
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/491 - Theodore Ts'o
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/148 - Dan Carpenter
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/58 - Christian Borntraeger
> 
> ...and I'm sure there are many more.

I'm ignoring these minimal effort patches for subsystems I maintain and I suggest 
other maintainers do the same.

Thanks,

	Ingo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Cc: "SF Markus Elfring" <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	"Christian Bornträger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	"Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	"Paul Gortmaker" <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	"Peter Oberparleiter" <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Sascha Silbe" <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Viktor Mihajlovski" <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 12:30:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170509103031.onbbgnuptd73j7ya@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ba03f7-d1d8-8064-7dee-b5a910ad47de@oracle.com>


* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/17 19:12, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:00:09 +0200
> > 
> > A few update suggestions were taken into account
> > from static source code analysis.
> > 
> > Markus Elfring (4):
> >   Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo()
> >   Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary()
> >   Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()
> >   Combine two function calls into one at four places
> > 
> >  arch/s390/kernel/cache.c     |  4 ++--
> >  arch/s390/kernel/processor.c |  2 +-
> >  arch/s390/kernel/sysinfo.c   | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> >  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally respond to this, but I was put on the Cc
> after all so I'll give my feedback.
> 
> I think these patches are a waste of time and a resources.

Agreed.

> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs. This is just mindless 
> code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes of code here and 
> there (I don't know; you didn't say).

... they might also be acceptable if they came from a genuine newbie who does his 
first patch, or if these patches represented genuine interest in the subsystem in 
question, by being part of a larger work that adds new features or does some 
meaningful code transformations.

They don't: they are Cocceline generated trivial patches from all around the 
kernel, and there's probably thousands of such 'problems' in the kernel - do we 
really want the churn of thousands of patches?

The cost of individual patches might be small, but their cumulative effect is 
non-trivial if we add up all the extra noise and overhad this adds to the kernel 
development flow.

> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches that 
> don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth, and mental 
> capacity for you and for everybody involved.
> 
> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally _hundreds_ 
> over the past few days, all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.
> 
> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you this 
> response:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/383 - Jens Axboe
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/262 - Johannes Thumshirn
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/12/513 - Cyrille Pitchen
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/491 - Theodore Ts'o
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/148 - Dan Carpenter
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/58 - Christian Borntraeger
> 
> ...and I'm sure there are many more.

I'm ignoring these minimal effort patches for subsystems I maintain and I suggest 
other maintainers do the same.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-05-09 10:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-07 17:12 [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:12 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] s390/cache: Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:13   ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] s390/processor: Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:14   ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] s390/sysinfo: Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:16   ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] s390/sysinfo: Combine two function calls into one SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:18   ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09  8:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations Vegard Nossum
2017-05-09  8:04   ` Vegard Nossum
2017-05-09  8:43   ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09  8:43     ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09 10:30   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-05-09 10:30     ` [PATCH 0/4] " Ingo Molnar
2017-05-09 10:54     ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09 10:54       ` SF Markus Elfring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170509103031.onbbgnuptd73j7ya@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.