On Tuesday 28 April 2009 06:08:06 Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:28:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if you want your points to have any meaning/usage, then they have to be > > on the mailing list. irc is useless for people trying to search for > > background information to a problem. > > I agree here, but I already gave up. And if "the real world timer > verification" is now mandatory, I'll do it, as it will lead to the effect > faster. The only thing I have to do is wait for a scope. I already run out > of time I was supposed to spend with U-Boot, so everything I'm doing eats > my spare time (sure, not an excuse ;-))
nothing has been mandated. we're simply a bunch of devs throwing around random ideas to try and make u-boot more resilient to free flowing changes that git development enables. a method to quickly validate user contributions is great as we can then say "you have to verify your change against the XXX test". > To repeat it briefly. When dealing with 32bit underflow free running > counter mathematical proof precission is sufficient as everyone can verify > its correctness. Measurement in contrast needs either believe to device > operator or independent verification and after that, custodian is supposed > to decide whom to believe. In that case the most reliable way is to repeat > measurement himself. So this method really doesn't improve situation a lot > and does not take into account corner cases I described earlier. i too would prefer a POST case that can be classified as a mathematically sound proof. did i miss something, or was such a case proposed ? > > as it stands, your e-mail simply reads as "i agree with what > > Jean-Christophe said". > > Or more likely "I agree with what Wolfgang said" ;-) well i'm glad you clarified because i missed the point of your e-mail -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
