From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FB829D6 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:05:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ablgx-0008PR-QZ; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:06:36 +0100 To: "Hunt, David" , dev@dpdk.org References: <1453829155-1366-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1455634095-4183-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1455634095-4183-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <56C71913.10901@6wind.com> <56D4275A.4070502@intel.com> From: Olivier MATZ X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56D94FBB.7000808@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:04:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D4275A.4070502@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/6] mempool: add external mempool manager support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 09:05:08 -0000 Hi David, On 02/29/2016 12:11 PM, Hunt, David wrote: >> Also, I'm sorry but it seems that several comments or question I've made >> in http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032706.html are >> not addressed. >> >> Examples: >> - putting some part of the patch in separate commits >> - meaning of "rt_pool" >> - put_pool_bulk unclear comment >> - should we also have get_pool_bulk stats? >> - missing _MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD() in mempool_bulk() >> - why internal in rte_mempool_internal.h? >> - why default in rte_mempool_default.c? >> - remaining references to stack handler (in a comment) >> - ...? >> >> As you know, doing a proper code review takes a lot of time. If I >> have to re-check all of my previous comments, it will take even >> more. I'm not saying all my comments require a code change, but in case >> you don't agree, please at least explain your opinion so we can debate >> on the list. >> > Hi Olivier, > Sincerest apologies. I had intended in coming back around to your > original comments after refactoring the code. I will do that now. I did > take them into consideration, but I see now that I need to do further > work, such as a clearer name for rt_pool, etc. I will respond to your > original email. I thought some comments were ignored :) So no problem in that case, thanks for clarifying. Olivier