From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:28:50 -0800
Subject: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts()
 after error detection
In-Reply-To: <568EC56A.402@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5685A273.6070607@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20160107110701.GE25086@rric.localdomain>
 <568EBCE7.4060502@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1452195846.4028.24.camel@perches.com>
 <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com> <568EC56A.402@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <1452198530.4028.43.camel@perches.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 21:07 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > * Which object code representations would you find representative
> > > ? for a further constructive discussion around this
> > > ? software component?
> > 
> > Evidence of actual object code improvement
> 
> How do you think about to provide a function implementation
> which looks a bit more efficient by default?

It's not a matter of "looks a bit more efficient".
it's taste, style, and repetition for various functions.

Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless
of the number of exit points that any particular use of a
specific function type.

Some of your patches are converting these templatized
functions to a different form for no added value.

These patches make the local source code inconsistent
and generally goes against the authors preferred style.