Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:23:07 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: wb@freebie.xs4all.nl, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf files ... Message-ID: <20071018112307.pkb8qmn8ao4cog80@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20071018.013827.-749244202.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <52235.1192653371@critter.freebsd.dk> <20071018091134.jzo7m88374ow00c8@webmail.leidinger.net> <20071018.013827.-749244202.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> (from Thu, 18 Oct 2007 =20 01:38:27 -0600 (MDT)): > There are people doing high precision timing applications with FreeBSD > today. I'm one of them. Sensors for phase time differences are like > pounding a screw with a hammer. Sure, it looks like it works and > often time it works well enough for the application. But closer > inspection shows the item constructed lacks structural integrity. > There's all kinds of different nuances that need to be considered when > doing high precision real-time timing systems. The current time > difference sensor interface in OpenBSD just doesn't cut it. Warner, I already stated much earlier in the thread that I don't see a =20 benefit in providing time via the sensors framework, as we already =20 have a better API for this (I'm not a high precision time keeping guy, =20 and I've seen the advantage of what we have even before Poul talked =20 about this, as I know about the time related possibilities FreeBSD =20 offers). I also said earlier that we don't have to have all OpenBSD =20 sensors in FreeBSD, it depends upon the policy we use for sensors. All of this complains about specific sensors are not a technical =20 reason to object to the framework itself. If Poul would have said that =20 Constantine shall make sure that there's text in sensible places that =20 explain that we have a better API in FreeBSD for time and that this =20 API shall be used instead of the sensors framework, than that would =20 have been OK for me (I even would have supported Poul, as I clearly =20 see it as a step back for us to use the sensors framework for time). I =20 even asked for technical reasons, but he didn't provide them. I asked =20 for them already weeks/months ago, when Poul was objecting against the =20 idea of the sensors framework, but he didn't gave them. So it is not =20 some days in which Poul didn't came up with technical reasons against =20 the idea/framework, but weeks/months. When he objects to some specific sensors, great! Finally a technical =20 argument! After Poul repeatedly was saying for a too long time that =20 the idea is that bad that he doesn't even look at the framework, I'm =20 happy that he provides technical arguments now! But I have to say, =20 that the technical arguments he presented so far are about small parts =20 in the framework which should be polished, but nothing which makes the =20 framework look like the "crap" Poul said in this thread. He came up =20 with some buzzwords like ACPI and IPMI to prove his non technical =20 points against the framework he presented so far, and he was =20 told/shown that those work just nicely with this framework. If it is not clear, I don't write all those mails to defend each line =20 of code in the sensors framework. I write all those mails because I =20 object to Pouls way of complaining without technical arguments (not =20 that he presented invalid technical arguments, no, he wasn't even =20 willing to present technical arguments at all in the beginning) that =20 he showed for a long time in this thread. If this info is new to =20 someone reading this, he should read all my mails again with this =20 information again. If someone wants to talk about technical stuff... great, I'm sure =20 Constantine will discuss them with him. If someone wants to support Poul in his raid against the _idea_ of the =20 framework _without_ providing technical arguments against the _idea_, =20 this person can discuss this with me until I have to go to the =20 hospital next week and after I'm back a week or so later (I'm also not =20 available at the weekend, sorry). Bye, Alexander. --=20 http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137 To say you got a vote of confidence would be to say you needed a vote of confidence. =09=09-- Andrew Young
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071018112307.pkb8qmn8ao4cog80>