From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:27:13 +0000 Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations Message-Id: List-Id: References: <24f8c777-1eb4-e7e7-9371-79f32700c9dc@users.sourceforge.net> <2cbef557-5f89-c630-e108-14ef2ce6b41a@users.sourceforge.net> <1547a4c2-5b70-e3a3-b482-d28c538e615c@users.sourceforge.net> <539adde3-a713-721f-2a0d-1d1ef925fb86@users.sourceforge.net> <9a9348f4-d059-de28-1445-0189b7fb0ba3@users.sourceforge.net> <3b7b24bd-4bdf-752e-1a62-cc71e9152acc@users.sourceforge.net> <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Takashi Sakamoto , Arvind Yadav On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:15:27 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Because I didn't see any test result from you, > > This is correct so far. > > > > so I can't trust you. > > This view did not hinder you to integrate some of my update suggestions > which you found easier to handle. The really trivial things are different. Don't mix up things. > >> Which test configurations would you trust finally? > > > > Do test whatever like the users do. > > I find such an information too unsafe for an official acceptance test. No-testing is the worst case. > >> How can such descriptions improve the trust situation? > > > > It's the first step. At least then I can see you did some test. > > Currently nothing. zero. nada. > > I am unsure if acceptable test results will ever be published for this > software module. Then forget about your patches. > > How can I trust it? > > * Would you dare to inspect the shown source code adjustments again? Not unless you give some testing results. > * How do you think about to sort the remaining update candidates > by their change size (or software age)? Irrelevant. Takashi