Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1637143 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-08 01:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2017-05-09 10:10 +0200
      Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-09 10:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-05-09 12:40 +0200
        Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-09 13:00 +0200

#1637143 — [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:00:09 +0200

A few update suggestions were taken into account
from static source code analysis.

Markus Elfring (4):
  Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo()
  Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary()
  Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()
  Combine two function calls into one at four places

 arch/s390/kernel/cache.c     |  4 ++--
 arch/s390/kernel/processor.c |  2 +-
 arch/s390/kernel/sysinfo.c   | 25 +++++++++++--------------
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

-- 
2.12.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637964

On 05/07/17 19:12, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:00:09 +0200
>
> A few update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus Elfring (4):
>   Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo()
>   Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary()
>   Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()
>   Combine two function calls into one at four places
>
>  arch/s390/kernel/cache.c     |  4 ++--
>  arch/s390/kernel/processor.c |  2 +-
>  arch/s390/kernel/sysinfo.c   | 25 +++++++++++--------------
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>

I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally respond to this, but I was put on the Cc
after all so I'll give my feedback.

I think these patches are a waste of time and a resources.

It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs. This is just
mindless code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes
of code here and there (I don't know; you didn't say).

But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches
that don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth,
and mental capacity for you and for everybody involved.

I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally
_hundreds_ over the past few days, all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc
transformation.

Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you
this response:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/383 - Jens Axboe
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/262 - Johannes Thumshirn
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/12/513 - Cyrille Pitchen
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/491 - Theodore Ts'o
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/148 - Dan Carpenter
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/58 - Christian Borntraeger

...and I'm sure there are many more.


Vegard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637985 — Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations

> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs.

I dare to point change possibilities out which correspond to a special error category.
There can be different opinions about their relevance for further software improvements.


> This is just mindless code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes
> of code here and there (I don't know; you didn't say).

Do you know the run time characteristics for the discussed functions good enough?
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.11/source/fs/seq_file.c#L405


> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches
> that don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth,
> and mental capacity for you and for everybody involved.

I suggest a bit of code reduction at various places once more.


> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally
> _hundreds_ over the past few days,

I sent update suggestions in this scale since the year 2014.


> all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.

I agree that the corresponding number could be remarkable.
But there are also other source code search patterns involved besides information
around these logging functions.


> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you
> this response:

You are right that some agreements and disagreements were expressed already
(depending on the software area).

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1638031

* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/17 19:12, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:00:09 +0200
> > 
> > A few update suggestions were taken into account
> > from static source code analysis.
> > 
> > Markus Elfring (4):
> >   Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo()
> >   Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary()
> >   Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()
> >   Combine two function calls into one at four places
> > 
> >  arch/s390/kernel/cache.c     |  4 ++--
> >  arch/s390/kernel/processor.c |  2 +-
> >  arch/s390/kernel/sysinfo.c   | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> >  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally respond to this, but I was put on the Cc
> after all so I'll give my feedback.
> 
> I think these patches are a waste of time and a resources.

Agreed.

> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs. This is just mindless 
> code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes of code here and 
> there (I don't know; you didn't say).

... they might also be acceptable if they came from a genuine newbie who does his 
first patch, or if these patches represented genuine interest in the subsystem in 
question, by being part of a larger work that adds new features or does some 
meaningful code transformations.

They don't: they are Cocceline generated trivial patches from all around the 
kernel, and there's probably thousands of such 'problems' in the kernel - do we 
really want the churn of thousands of patches?

The cost of individual patches might be small, but their cumulative effect is 
non-trivial if we add up all the extra noise and overhad this adds to the kernel 
development flow.

> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches that 
> don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth, and mental 
> capacity for you and for everybody involved.
> 
> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally _hundreds_ 
> over the past few days, all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.
> 
> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you this 
> response:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/383 - Jens Axboe
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/23/262 - Johannes Thumshirn
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/12/513 - Cyrille Pitchen
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/491 - Theodore Ts'o
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/148 - Dan Carpenter
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/58 - Christian Borntraeger
> 
> ...and I'm sure there are many more.

I'm ignoring these minimal effort patches for subsystems I maintain and I suggest 
other maintainers do the same.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1638038 — Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations

> ... they might also be acceptable if they came from a genuine newbie 
> who does his first patch,

How would you really react if such Linux development beginners would dare
to pick any of the shown software change opportunities up?


> or if these patches represented genuine interest in the subsystem in question,

I am interested in various improvements where their size is varying between small
and big as usual.


> by being part of a larger work that adds new features or does some meaningful
> code transformations.

These updates happened also several times.

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web