Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Allow benchmarking of CpuBoundWork#CpuBoundWork() via additional out-param #10167

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Allow benchmarking of CpuBoundWork#CpuBoundWork() via additional out-param #10167

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Al2Klimov
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@Al2Klimov Al2Klimov added the core/quality Improve code, libraries, algorithms, inline docs label Sep 20, 2024
@Al2Klimov Al2Klimov requested a review from yhabteab September 20, 2024 08:19
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla/signed label Sep 20, 2024
@Al2Klimov Al2Klimov mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2024
Merged
yhabteab
yhabteab reviewed Sep 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yhabteab yhabteab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add an appropriate description for the newly introduced constructors, describing why and how they should be used. How is someone supposed to figure out that he has to use the overloaded constructor with the took duration argument set to obtain the elapsed time on acquiring the semaphore?

@Al2Klimov Al2Klimov force-pushed the CpuBoundWork-benchmarking branch from 350ce94 to 687fbd2 Compare September 23, 2024 15:08
@Al2Klimov Al2Klimov requested a review from yhabteab October 31, 2024 11:29
yhabteab
yhabteab reviewed Oct 31, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yhabteab yhabteab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you read this comment #10141 (comment)?

@yhabteab
Copy link
Member

yhabteab commented Oct 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I am not sure how to interpret your reaction with 👍🏼 to the above comment. Does that mean you read it and still want to have this PR merged? To clarify, I am against this PR as we don't need that level of precision, and PR #10141 is sufficient for our use case.

@Al2Klimov
Copy link
Member Author

Name the last time I've used "it's sufficient" as argument and colleagues agreed with me. (I don't remember.) Not to mention the ratio agreed/ not agreed.

But, OK, I don't insist on this specific change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@yhabteab yhabteab yhabteab left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cla/signed core/quality Improve code, libraries, algorithms, inline docs
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Al2Klimov @yhabteab