wangchdo commented on PR #17570: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17570#issuecomment-3677400453
> > > > @Fix-Point You need to test this hrtimer module according to its design, not according to your own assumption. > > > > > > > > > This is not my own assumption. Such a bug actually occurred in our system. Please do not underestimate the complexity of the SMP system. > > > > > > I suggest you stop teaching others as a teacher, it does not help anything - this time SMP, last time I remember DO-178, ISO 26262. And also saying words like mine is completely unusable, your's are better in every aspects is also not helpful. > > I'm truly sorry, that was entirely my fault. I became a bit emotional after being accused of copying someone else's idea without basis. Actually, I never intended to argue with anyone—I only wanted to discuss technical matters and made the NuttX better. Thank you for pointing out the issue; I'll try my best to avoid using such offensive language in the future. Also, you can check my hrtimer part2 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17573, I think the main design on supporting os tick with hrtimer are totally diffrent than your previous PR(https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17556): Hrtimer is strictly isolated from the current scheduling logic: 1. All hrtimer code is enabled only when CONFIG_HRTIMER is set. 2. If CONFIG_HRTIMER is disabled, the scheduler continues to use the existing tick-based or tickless mechanisms with no changes. 3. When enabled, hrtimer reuses the existing scheduler logic to drive OS ticks via a dedicated hrtimer instance. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
