This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: strstr optimization
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:25:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: strstr optimization
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <558A5761 dot 2000409 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <87oajpm8nc dot fsf at totoro dot br dot ibm dot com> <871tgijuri dot fsf at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <55A6FE3F dot 6090701 at redhat dot com> <55A70B70 dot 6090607 at redhat dot com> <20150716195538 dot GA5140 at domone> <55A8110C dot 7000209 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1507221607370 dot 21570 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150725082025 dot GA5043 at domone> <1437960366 dot 6865 dot 9 dot camel at oc7878010663> <20150727091940 dot GA24190 at domone>
On 07/27/2015 05:19 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> 1. Reviews, it would be better to always write reviews publictly. But as
> you still have them could you send reviews here to clarify.
As machine maintainers they can commit their code as-if they had consensus.
Your after-the-fact reviews are good, and should be considered follow-on
work. You should work closely with IBM in a professional and technical
manner, present your own patches to the existing IBM code and discus
the testing and changes that you made. All of this *on top* of whatever
is in the existing master branch. You must present this work in a clear
and concise manner, providing IBM the tools with which to evaluate and test
The IBM maintainers do not need to convince you. They have consensus as
maintainers. You need to convince *them* that your solution is better rather
than attempting to block their patches, which is not your responsibility.
Lastly, beware that your single dissenting opinion may not constitute
an important part of the concerned interests of the glibc community.
Therefore, even if you are correct, the community may tell you that your
comments will not be considered until you find a way to work with the
I for one would like to see you working *with* IBM instead of what appears
to be an antagonistic realtionship surrounding these performance-related
changes. I think both sides should look to the positive aspects of having
more people reviewing existing implementations for performance benefits.