kernel defconfig, debugging, preemption, and very noticeable speedups/ debugging
fercerpav at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 11:42:07 CET 2010
To avoid any further confusion i'd like to clarify some points, please
bear with me.
Also, please keep in mind neither me, nor Gennady or other
participants of the discussion are native speakers so it is quite
possible something very important was "lost in translation". I really
see no reason whatsoever for any kind of emotional response or
Gennady Kupava <gb at bsdmn.com> writes:
> 1. i am wrong by definition (exactly), my opinion was completely
> ignored, and the whole discussion was desclared as waste of time
> (exactly in this words).
It wasn't me who claimed that and i disagree with this idea. I'm not
sure but probably you misunderstood some statement or you was
> 2. current kernel dev (paul) is not willing to support kernel with
I'm not "current kernel dev", that's first. I'm still committed to
making OM kernel better if and when i can do that. Optimizations are
very essential and important. I'm ready to participate in optimization
> 3. paul also publically told that it was 'dirty trick' to publish my mail
> about optimization to the 'end users', also he was very irritated by me because
> i am reason for the fact that 'end users' want something from him.
I wasn't irritated by you at all. I was irritated by the end-users. I
never claimed that you had any malice intentions or purposely used
"dirtry tricks". It was my impression that the result of the letter by
some user (and it wasn't you) was similar to that of a "dirty trick",
i.e. end-users demanding to do something kernel-level ASAP is unfun.
Sorry for not explaining it clearly the time we talked :(
> my plan was to continue investigation of other options and eventually
> try to fix NAND ECC handling in hardware.
That's a good plan imho.
> now i understood that if even elementary things can't be pushed and devs
> are willing to 'keep as much debugging as possible',
As much as possible unless it hurts performance. And no, things can
and are being pushed.
> seems that performance is not serous issue to paul and some other
I'm afraid this is a wrong impression.
> and i will have no way to discuss other optimizations, i'll be just
> ignored or insulted.
I hope it will never be the case again.
I think everybody's interested in seeing as much results wrt
optimization as possible, it's great you're still interested in it and
i hope the community will find a way to collaborate with you fruitfully.
Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software!
mailto:fercerpav at gmail.com
More information about the openmoko-kernel