[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5h4lpeqvin.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:21:20 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:01:47 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> >>> Give the test result before speaking too much.
> >>
> >> Which concrete data do you expect here?
> >
> > Depends on the result.
>
> How can this vary?
How? Because I didn't see any test result from you, so I can't trust
you.
> > The bottom line is that you run your patched kernel on the real hardware
>
> Which test configurations would you trust finally?
Do test whatever like the users do.
> > or equivalent (VM or emulation) for the device you touched.
>
> Can all the devices for which I dared to adjust their source code a bit
> tested in desired ways within virtual machines?
No, you need to run the kernel exactly to be used by the user of the
target hardware.
> > Run your patched kernel and the driver code on the real machine with
> > the corresponding device. Show the device is running. That's the
> > very first step. Then follow the more detailed tests, but it depends
> > on the subsystem.
>
> 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. How can I trust it?
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists