Subject: Re: Further software improvements around Linux sequence API?
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <3809e713-2f08-db60-92c1-21d735a4f35b@users.sourceforge.net>
 <4126c272-cdf6-677a-fe98-74e8034078d8@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20161024131311.ttwr2bblphg6vd2b@thunk.org>
 <e7ac4cba-bce1-edf5-a537-4c06a357bfb3@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20161024142037.rrslfxtimj44s5t6@thunk.org>
 <8592fa0c-e80a-77e2-fc44-4017f0988c8c@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20161024155112.ixdfi3ucs7sg2zgh@thunk.org>
Cc: Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@gelma.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@imgtec.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Ralf_B=c3=a4chle?= <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel <Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <47c7084e-21d8-4564-c237-84324dae17ab@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:10:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161024155112.ixdfi3ucs7sg2zgh@thunk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1987
Lines: 48

> An experienced developer would be able to very easily spot that trying
> to optimize seq_printf() versus seq_puts() is barely going to be measurable.

Would you like to offer any incentives to use a more appropriate function
from this Linux programming interface for sequences?


> It's the sort of thing that a developer might fix while
> making other, more useful changes to a source file.

I get doubts when you expect that change possibilities with a higher
priority should and will almost always picked up before update candidates
with a lower impact.


> Well, please note that having a reputation of someone who insists on
> sending mostly junk patches (and like junk food, they may have some
> nutritive value; but that doesn't change the effect that the net
> benefit to person consuming them is marginal or negative), tends to
> give you a bad reputation, and may in fact be a hinderance towards
> your being able to attain "financial incentives".

I can not offer the ?shiny gold nugget? or ?pure diamond? so far directly
which is often preferred.


> If that is in fact your goal, I would gently suggest that you spend
> more time improving your skills, and learning more about higher-value
> ways you could contribute to the kernel, instead of spamming the
> kernel list with lots of low value patches.

* I could extend my source code search patterns in principle.
  How many developers and software reviewers struggle with results
  from existing code analysis tools?

* Will your interest occasionally grow for collateral software evolution?


> In the future if you are adding higher value improvements, and you want
> to do various cleanups, such as fixing up seq_printf -> seq_puts changes, sure.

Is this kind of feedback a contradiction at the moment when you seem to give
the impression that my software development reputation is so damaged in the
?junk food? sense that I could hardly achieve the software change mixture
which you would prefer?

Regards,
Markus