[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77d74ffc-c833-f7ad-b1e2-5e07ac9d23a7@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 15:54:51 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations
> Generally speaking, I don't care about checkpatch/cocci changes that aren't tested.
I find this view interesting only to some degree.
1. I suggest to combine a few functions into fewer ones.
* Do you spot any programming mistakes in these concrete cases?
* Can such code reduction result into desired effects?
2. I propose to use the function “seq_putc” at more source code places.
* Do you really find any previous system test approaches insufficient around
such a Linux feature?
* Does the programming interface “seq_puts” provide any properties
that you prefer over the other one for the sequence output of single characters?
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.11/source/fs/seq_file.c#L664
> With your changes, we don't have this upside.
How do you think about to pick spelling corrections up for two comment lines?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists