Am 21.10.2016 um 19:53 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 07:33:30PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> >>> but (a) this isn't performance critical, >> >> This can be. > > In this case, no, it really can't possibly be performance critical. > If you can't see why, you have no business trying to send patches. > >>> and (b) the number of bytes saved is really tiny. >> >> I imagine that the corresponding code and data size reduction could >> be occasionally useful, couldn't it? > > Note that in some cases, attempts to shirnk the code by tiny amounts > can actually, paradoxically, cause the code to actually *expand*. In > any case, shrinking the kernel by 0.00015% really won't matter, since > for no other reason, we round memory used to 4k pages. > > So keeping the code easily readible is aslo a consideration that needs > to be taken into acconut. > >>> But at least if the compiler was doing the work, it would at least deal with >>> it everywhere. >> >> I would find such an optimisation possibility also nice. >> >> Can it become acceptable to achieve a similar effect by the application >> of scripts for the semantic patch language in the meantime? > > The problem with scripts like this is that they very clearly don't > have any human judgement. And when the person using the scripts also > doesn't seem to have good judgement, it's a real problem. > > When the author of the semantic patch language is telling you to stand down, A collaboration evolved between Julia and me during the years where different software development opinions can be usual. There are eventually further opinions from Linux contributors like you. > and you still want to try to argue for blind application of patches, > we have a really big problem. > Especially when some of your patches have actually introduced bugs. > > - Ted > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
