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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, 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 11786C47258 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:53:21 +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 6F237206A5 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:53:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alsa-project.org header.i=@alsa-project.org header.b="McvzjxkZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F237206A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de 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 A6D52173B; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:28 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz A6D52173B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1588686798; bh=Oh52G6YJiUs8sTXiKSlqzXnSwLPzzLNZYWHWiia688s=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=McvzjxkZXmAduOSo35GID4gqqP9d7kD3TjN2WByQFY60fc00qCaH6FpPw1WY+ZAFf 4pT8nmtVi6xzk+IDHUwvB9sBKOeVZS+1Zo8MTXwBnBxkivJYKxhLiQl/bgc+ybybLl IVBIb1BoV9XHux44thGEkv5h8tFaWL4ulvKsYxXs= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F07EF8015B; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id CEE6CF8015F; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4766F800DE for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz E4766F800DE X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DA9AD76; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52:19 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: =?UTF-8?B?RlLDiUTDiVJJQw==?= RECOULES Subject: Re: [PATCH] [inline assembly] fix pcm_dmix_i386.h assembly chunk interfaces In-Reply-To: <771384288.121039.1588620316734.JavaMail.zimbra@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> References: <20200427165707.17570-1-frederic.recoules@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> <640422029.9300033.1588239716857.JavaMail.zimbra@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> <771384288.121039.1588620316734.JavaMail.zimbra@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: alsa-devel , frederic recoules 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 Mon, 04 May 2020 21:25:16 +0200, FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES wrote: > > Hi Takashi, > > I would like an update on the review process ([PATCH */6 V2] [pcm_dmix > assembly]) > > As a reminder, I split the changes in 6 distinct patches. > The 3 first patches produce exactly the same binary output, so they do not > need testing. > The 4th one has just some minor change due to the fact that I added an > instruction -- I am highly confident it breaks nothing. The compile tests passed with a few different compiler set, so that's good. But there were some issues with the patch format. IIRC, the patch 2 couldn't be applied to the latest git tree cleanly (some space letter issues?), so I had to manually modify it. Also, some style issues: - Please avoid a prefix like "[configure]" in the subject. The prefix with "[PATCH xxx]" is good, and this should remain, but the next prefix should be "configure:" instead. Otherwise the prefix with the brackets are pruned at applying a patch via git-am. - Please give more texts about why the change is done. In all your patches, there are no explanations why you change it. It's often more important than describing what you're changing. For example, the patch 2 "change the token by symbolic names". Why is this needed to be symbolic names? Write some more information in each patch description. - We usually use #ifdef without space between "#" and "ifdef". Let's keep that style consistently. > If you need I test the 2 last ones (that reduce the size of the produced > binary), could you point me out what test I should run? We need at least some build tests with different compiler versions and check whether dmix actually works (not necessarily on all of them but some of those compiled results). > Meanwhile, my deadline comes and I would really appreciate to see the patches > applied by wednesday night. If you can work on the above and resubmit v3 patchset, I'll happily apply them. Thanks! Takashi