Fix-Point commented on issue #17567: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/17567#issuecomment-3673706734
> [@Fix-Point](https://github.com/Fix-Point) > > This is my final response to you, > > 1. The current HRTIMER implementation is based on the AMP mode. While it is not perfect, it is indeed functional. > We can collaborate on optimizing this implementation. If you identify any flaws, please contribute to improving it. > 2. Your words and deeds have proven that you are engaging in factional disputes. I have exercised great restraint in responding to your remarks. Similar issues arose during the previous optimization of the tick-to-counter mechanism. > 3. Test cases have already been provided in [sched/sched: Part 1: add high resolution timer (hrtimer) only (without os tick support with hrtimer) for NuttX #17517](https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17517). If you believe there are defects, please enhance the test cases so that we can collectively refine them, instead of creating a dedicated thread to disparage others' work and tout your own. > > I will not respond to someone as unprofessional as you anymore. Please refrain from @mentioning me in the future. Thank you. 1. I have not seen any mention in the PR, commits, or documentation that this is designed exclusively for AMP. The claim that HRTIMER is only suitable for AMP is merely your own wishful thinking—even @wangchdo has never made any such statement. If I have misunderstood, please add the constraints to the documentation and include `depends !SMP` for hrtimer to prevent misuse. Even so, I believe such code is not mature enough to be merged into the upstream. This is because NuttX must consider all application scenarios, including `CONFIG_SMP`. 2. How can you ignore the facts and make such a statement? I have no intention of arguing with you. My position has always been: if your implementation is functionally correct and well-designed, I would certainly support it. 3. I do not intend to boast about my own work. All I wish is to make NuttX faster and robust. Currently, there is a clearly problematic PR https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17517 here. I have proposed my alternative solution, yet you are disregarding it and pushing for the flawed PR to be merged. I believe this is not good. -- 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]
