Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:19:55 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> How would you notice that a corresponding system test worked
> >> in reasonable ways?
> > 
> > It needs a trust to the patch author or the tester who reported that
> > it worked.
> 
> Can this aspect vary over time?

Not really.

> > The test result should be mentioned concisely.
> 
> How do you think about to introduce accepted automatic test procedures?

If *you* do introduce automatic testing for *your* patches, then I
appreciate it.

> > You shouldn't rely on my system.
> 
> Did this system get sufficient trust so far?

I can trust my system for my purpose.

> > The main point is your patch itself; make your patch more reliable.
> 
> It seems that I can make my adjustments only a bit more interesting
> by positive review comments from other contributors
> (if you can not become convinced by the concrete source code changes).

Yes.


Takashi
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux