From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA9BC433E0 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B16B964F11 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:57:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B16B964F11 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sakamocchi.jp Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582991655; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:56:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz 582991655 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1616086667; bh=gCEirWoFZr21IJHyjb1zygjaeg6CizY6mqS9+y1XYKI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=EymVJkhB9Z1WCB8IDTM8x0Ub0Wfldtnx/BUtg6lRHx7RUUWXnudzQyA/kS2zw8rNO PtMFHub9pC4pmKFarHJ8ziVn+3vqbp5y25P7qeQy7l78ueCOSjNgmm1o15NYTrlmUe WgLa70yHEinmLQl7bGBpEsC65D/waOGa8Fvna0UI= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5AAF80163; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:56:56 +0100 (CET) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id 3A328F80165; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:56:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58969F800C8 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:56:43 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz 58969F800C8 Authentication-Results: alsa1.perex.cz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sakamocchi.jp header.i=@sakamocchi.jp header.b="wzFkKmbw"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="PaUmzMUv" Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BEC1637; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:56:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sakamocchi.jp; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm1; bh=y0Je8PhhfpB1uox2CDCvy/HHecC kGZ9VivRRmEggYvY=; b=wzFkKmbwiLecqSnPPnn2nI7bMM+oTckSEH2MXFNhVxE STEhMElGqMFL1+UvXsD+CwIdvZEpe7Md1wzeciAeUvJKu2zSmh4XzYJbFIjJNiIB KGRK2qa/8RgeOOo9TgCKtpM7Q2g3jk6ko7x+lEsNJmRxIIOGikQ2Y56X3+wT/7wF mRR3bA1jF7Oo51k3k3Z57xCA6zRlhxOFDukzBaF4IwXEUYvgpr18nia6+u7Jk0d+ imN0kjSHrk/fxTYDBUNbeyUETL/t5BHUntW+zpr8gSReoD9Nk1faya9IaTAOJhRI xI1rXQN7udeeBTEtPpiRVBnpfACt1unLYcZsvQkz5Iw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=y0Je8P hhfpB1uox2CDCvy/HHecCkGZ9VivRRmEggYvY=; b=PaUmzMUvUzpryY9/Sf/m+x npjdJJgrje6/ZK+oBGOeCAoXGbqKrlidKjzLvxYE2d4naUYX6/GMj4IrAE12onAa rOJIyCM3aa3I09lHWw1OYepqZ+1d5vxmtRr4fCAjdUWqdM8WryGSWFGj5bxbX09k A60XcGLzL82P5MdrVI0ciUkk+qVyDdevn3gHdJba20jdyZGQ12vyxkVLWGntMSj2 hJO1+92Mavq5lAneDIbSyz83XZCC2F1vxD0/qat868sVy6vegNXhn90y6CcYrfVZ XeUsf3ZOl0Q6ISLw/IdSZF6MJ3bXpXtrmcCzP8rW46Z6CTrrVQSQ3n89nnn6Vpeg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudefiedgleeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtre dttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfgrkhgrshhhihcuufgrkhgrmhhothhouceoohdqthgrkhgr shhhihesshgrkhgrmhhotggthhhirdhjpheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheplefhueegvd ejgfejgfdukeefudetvddtuddtueeivedttdegteejkedvfeegfefhnecukfhppedugedr fedrieehrddujeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepohdqthgrkhgrshhhihesshgrkhgrmhhotggthhhirdhjph X-ME-Proxy: Received: from workstation (ae065175.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [14.3.65.175]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0B5B4240054; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 01:56:34 +0900 From: Takashi Sakamoto To: Jaroslav Kysela , tiwai@suse.de, tanjeff@cccmz.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Subject: Re: [alsa-lib][PATCH 0/6] add API of equality and comparison for a pair of control element IDs Message-ID: <20210318165634.GA277809@workstation> Mail-Followup-To: Jaroslav Kysela , tiwai@suse.de, tanjeff@cccmz.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org References: <20210318103013.265264-1-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp> <16eab1c6-03ef-fb06-9e5d-888de1cb63b4@perex.cz> <20210318163715.GA273829@workstation> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210318163715.GA273829@workstation> X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:37:15AM +0900, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > As I described, your old implementation is not acceptable just by renaming. > Although the idea of inline definitions is itself preferable. I suspect whether > inline definition for your comparison algorithm is really less overhead than > function call. > > Anyway I'll post revised version of patchset later. Oops. These APIs have arguments with opaque pointers. In the case, inline definition is not available since the layout of structure underlying the pointer is not available for userspace applications. Thus the rest of issue is whether to use 'tuple' or 'fields' in the name of new API. In my opinion, 'fields' is generic expression and could give impression to application developers that it includes numid field as well. On the other hand, 'tuple' is weak expression somehow and the developers easily find its meaning in alsa-lib documentation (see line 80). When considering about helpfulness to developers, 'tuple' seems to be better than 'fields'. Thanks Takashi Sakamoto