Subject: Re: com rumblings...
To: Izumi Tsutsui <email@example.com>
From: Garrett D'Amore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2006 22:06:24
Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
>> Well, I don't want to have this sit in a branch forever. I actually
>> tried to be compliant and make the changes you suggested, but got bit in
>> the ass.
> Well, I'd say it's better to wait a bit anyway...
The problem with the "waiting" is that we had lots of paper discussion,
but everyone else said "just implement it and get some real-world
results". So I'm doing that. Talking just to hear my own voice isn't
that interesting, frankly.
>> At this point, I'm going to stand my ground, I think. Of course, core@
>> can always make the final decision. :-)
> Of cource I won't object core's dicision.
Oh, either you or I can "object". Its just that such an objection might
not have much meaning. :-)
>> The problem is I had this conversation on tech-kern months ago. It
> IIRC, the discussion was about com_arbus.c, i.e. stride or regmap.
> Was there any discussion about actual regmap implementation
> before you posted it here about two days ago?
There was some discussion way back when. But my post a couple of days
ago was the first time I proposed a concrete solution. Its not just
com_arbus.c, btw, but really com_aubus.c that is most interesting.
Anyway, I've really tried to take criticisms constructively, but at this
point this *particular* criticism (the sc_iot BS), doesn't seem to be
fruitful, so I'm going to ignore it.
If you (or anyone else) comes up with a much better way to do this, then
you (or whoever else) is more than free to either change what I've done
or ask core@ to reject my proposal with an alternate proposal. I don't
really care either way.
> Izumi Tsutsui
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191