Subject: Re: FreeBSD Bus DMA
To: Justin T. Gibbs <email@example.com>
From: David Edelsohn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/11/1998 17:46:23
>>>>> "Justin T Gibbs" writes:
Justin> Is it so inconceivable that a piece of code
Justin> originating in NetBSD could be improved upon? Does it simply hurt your
Justin> egos too much when a third party, operating fully within the bounds of the
Justin> license on the code, modifies it, then has the audacity to submit the
Justin> changes back and claim their modifications might have made the code better?
Perry could have posed his question in a much better way, but the
basic crux is: How do you justify your claim that you have improved the
code? You only seem to provide theoretical arguments.
Your above statement implies that you have improved it. You have
made this statement without providing any justification that it is
improved in performance while remaining completely portable.
Some people who work on NetBSD take that statement as a challenge
and as flamebait. I think that you should have expected that and begun to
substantiate your claim more thoroughly. Perry's reaction was
inappropriate; but from what I followed in the conversation, you seemed to
be trying to elicit that reaction just so you now could object to it.
Justin> If there are portability
Justin> problems with my changes (primarily the addition of a callback, the removal
Justin> of a mandatory copy of the S/G list in the dma map object, and making dma
Justin> tag and dma map objects completely opaque) I certainly want to hear about
I would much prefer if you would ignore the tone of Perry's reply
and return to addressing the content of his objection, which you still
have not. The above comment sounds like you want others to disprove your
assertion instead of requiring you to prove it in the first place.
David Edelsohn T.J. Watson Research Center
email@example.com P.O. Box 218
+1 914 945 4364 (TL 862) Yorktown Heights, NY 10598