This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- Cc: dalias at libc dot org, carlos at redhat dot com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:59:29 +0530
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5596AE46 dot 7030507 at redhat dot com> <20150703163836 dot GQ1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150703165438 dot GR1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150703 dot 095855 dot 1313966140977949213 dot davem at davemloft dot net>
On 3 July 2015 at 22:28, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> I don't think the project as a whole gets to dictate what is the best
> performance selection or set of tradeoffs for CPU X in all possible
> scenerios.
>
> Port specific performance tradeoffs exist (f.e.: people who use CPU X
> do _NOT_ care about case Y of string function Z so we don't have to
> optimize it well), and you cannot enfore tree wide rules in this area.
Absolutely, but if the concerns or criticism have a sound base, the
arch maintainer should not simply ignore them. Maybe another way to
look at it is that the arch maintainer is deemed correct about
decisions on his/her port until proven wrong.
Siddhesh
--
http://siddhesh.in