On 20.9.2013 12:34, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > > On 20 September 2013 12:01, Jakub Jermar <ja...@jermar.eu > <mailto:ja...@jermar.eu>> wrote: > > I believe Martin didn't want to discourage you from contributing to > HelenOS. Neither do I - it is perfectly okay if you try to improve > various areas of HelenOS. But let's also consider the motivation behind > and the need for various changes. > > In this debate, we are faced with something that could be described as > an undesirable domino effect, which is sending tectonic waves throughout > the system. > > It starts with an isolated problem, VFS2 in this case. There you devise > a specialized low-level synchronization primitive for the implementation > of pipes, which you claim is impossible to implement using the standard > primitives. After receiving some doubts and criticism from us about not > using the basic building blocks and having a low-level primitive in the > VFS code, instead of adjusting your VFS2 code accordingly, you decide to > build all fibril synchronization on your new synchronization primitive. > This is basically a device allowing you to keep your VFS pipe code as it > is, instead of rewriting it using the ordinary synchronization. > > > No, this is completely wrong. I have already rewritten the VFS pipe code > to use ordinary synchronization, and I am not pushing it until I have > properly tested it.
Just describing how it looks like. This is probably the first time you are mentioning this here. > VFS is completely irrelevant here. Temporal > relation does not mean one happened because of the other. I > mentioned off-topic that sleeper can be used to clean up fibril-async > code. Martin challenged me to demonstrate. If he didn't, I probably > wouldn't bother yet, but for me this idea is older than any VFS work. Ok, I somehow missed the challenge thing. > But why > not - the related cleanup seems nice and reasonable. There is only one > problem with it: the timeouts, which can only be done using the async > framework or a separate thread (which is quite cumbersome). So the > fibril and async framework separation (*) and cleanup cannot be entirely > accomplished and therefore you suggest to rewrite the async framework > completely. > > > If you read my first message of this thread, you will notice that I > suggested rewriting async framework to begin with. In fact, I explicitly > said that for fibril_synch, this cleanup doesn't do much, but for async > framework, simplification could have bigger effect. If all your > interpretation of my work stands of mistaken ideas about my motivation, > this is going nowhere. I am still interested in seeing where this goes. But you need to understand that without the knowledge of your challenge (which is obviously not your fault, but mine), these changes seem quite arbitrary and one wonders about the motives. The connection with VFS2 where you first used it comes naturally to mind. Jakub _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list HelenOS-devel@lists.modry.cz http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
