Às 4:28 PM de 4/12/2017, David Miller escreveu: > From: Joao Pinto <joao.pi...@synopsys.com> > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:13:33 +0100 > >> Às 3:51 PM de 4/12/2017, David Miller escreveu: >>> You cannot develop performance based features and only test their >>> impact on FPGA when almost all users are on real silicon. >>> >>> And this requirement is absolutely non-negotiable. >>> >>> You must test the impact on real silicon otherwise your performance >>> numbers, which are required to be provided in the commit message >>> for any "performance" feature or change, are completely useless. >> >> Next time I won't mention anything about performance, honestly. "Drop TX >> Status" >> is just an IP Core feature that can or not be used, it is up to the driver >> user. > > Being dishonest about why a change might be desirable doesn't help things, in > fact > now that you've stated this intent in the future, people know to be > suspucious of > your changes.
Dishonest? I just sent the patch adding a optional configuration that can boost performance in applications where timestapping is not an issue. You can request more info in stmmac.txt, but calling me dishonest is a bit out of line. I perfectly accept if you feel that the patch is not useful, that's fine. > > I seriously don't think you realize the ramifications of what you just said > right > there. No, I don't see honestly. I just said that I am a developer that has an interest in the success of stmmac, but I don't want to steal maintenance seats :). > > Everything here is about trust, and if you create a situation where you can't > be > trusted then the process of doing upstream development will be extremely > difficult > and time consuming for you. Agree, trust is fundamental. I never gave reasons not to be trusted, in fact I have a good relation with some of the stmmac developers and in other subsystems, so I don't see the point of your observations. > > Thanks. > Joao
