yamt commented on PR #15603: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15603#issuecomment-2604298860
> > > @yamt do you agree to merge this patch after discussing with @anchao ? > > > > > > not really. > > i guess the main disagreement between us is on how large the overhead is. anchao seems to think it important. i feel it's negligible. none of us provided any numbers. maybe i can do some simple benchmark later. > > I need a balance. i agree on that. > You think writev/readv is important and it needs uio. I have no objection. Why must uio be used for read/write? because unified logic is easier to maintain. it isn't always trivial to maintain the consistent behavior if we have multiple paths. eg. your introduced a bug even with this simple PR. (dropped EINVAL check) > Your modification has inexplicably added a lot of cycle load to everyone's program. Have n't you understand your problem? > > > well, even if the benchmark proves me wrong, i'm against today's version of the PR because it drops the EINVAL check and anchao didn't explain why it was desirable. > > I will bring back EINVAL check, OK? > > > also, i feel this PR contains too many unrelated changes. (whitespaces, removing assertions for non obvious reasons, etc) > > Where is the extra space? Where is non obvious issue? Comment to PR? OK? i will do so later. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
