From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sun, 19 May 2013 01:25:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:48337 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6825737Ab3ERXZvWIKu8 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2013 01:25:51 +0200 Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 00:25:51 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: David Daney cc: "Steven J. Hill" , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v99,11/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Optimise 'strncpy' core library function. In-Reply-To: <518A7D40.1060502@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1354856737-28678-1-git-send-email-sjhill@mips.com> <1354856737-28678-12-git-send-email-sjhill@mips.com> <518987BD.7030900@gmail.com> <5189C41D.3000005@realitydiluted.com> <518A7D40.1060502@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 36454 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: macro@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Wed, 8 May 2013, David Daney wrote: > > > You don't really explain how the change helps optimization either. > > > > > The exercise is left to the reader. Build a microMIPS kernel yourself and > > figure it out. > > This isn't some sort of programming text book. Your job in the change log > (and the mailing list) isn't to force us to learn by doing a lot of > independent analysis of the code. Instead I would prefer a concise > explanation of why the change is beneficial. > > You are dumping a lot of new code into the kernel. That is fine, but you > could consider making the process easier by improving the quality of the > changelogs that accompany it. I concur, it's the contributor's responsibility to make the reviewers' work as easy as possible and to convince them that the change offered is both technically correct and desired for inclusion. Maciej