On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
I have not seen any explanations:
- Why did the upstream author write the code that way?
- Why are your changes correct?
- Why do your changes allow the compiler to produce faster code?
The upstream author of the code is available - and he might be able to
help you getting answers. No matter whether your changes are incorrect
or correct optimizations that should go upstream, in both cases
discussing these issues with upstream is the best solution.
The changelog I posted along with patch mentions all the changes I
made. I thought we will find all problems with this changelog in hand
and considering that its just ~500 LOC. But still, ok, asking
author himself will be good if he replies. I will mail him detailed
changelog and seek his feedback on this. This should answer all of
your questions.
And testing is nice, but if you broke some case that's outside of your
tests you'll never notice.
Yes. We cannot come up with exhaustive set of test cases to cover all
cases. But assuming that _original_ version is right and taking the
chagelog we should be able to verify if the porting is correct.
- Nitin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
