No, you quoted half a sentence. That wasn't the whole question. You didn't answer the actual question.
The fact that you're still insisting you answered the question makes it clear why you argued with me when I was just clarifying things. You didn't answer something different on purpose, you're still stubbornly acting like you answered the right thing.
You did not answer their actual question. Period. I'm leaving now.
They asked two questions and I answered one. You hallucinated timings to imaginary functions you couldn't name.
Period. I'm leaving now.
You inserted yourself and had a meltdown. I don't know why this was so upsetting but you couldn't actually give a single technical detail, it was just "I just know" and "ask them what function I'm talking about".
And you were just as stubborn/'meltdown' when repeatedly insisting it was about latency. They never mentioned latency.
No it wasn't (I think you meant rhetorical). They might just have not expected a reply.
And you were just as stubborn/'meltdown'
I didn't reply to you.
when repeatedly insisting it was about latency. They never mentioned latency.
I mentioned it once you mentioned overhead, because that's what is actually important between processes.
I don't mean rhetorical. I mean abstract in that it wasn't about specific locks, it was about types of lock. That's why I didn't try to name any particular functions.
> I didn't reply to you.
In your future replies to me.
If you're not talking about later replies... are you implying you were calling my first comment a meltdown? Weird.
> I mentioned it once you mentioned overhead, because that's what is actually important between processes.
The main worry expressed in the original post was about the throughput of using an IPC lock in places that don't need an IPC lock. That's the overhead I was talking about.
That's what I answered.
are you implying you were calling my first comment a meltdown? Weird.
Trying to make things up that never happened?