If you have the time to do it, I would prefer to get a squashed patch from you, because you can probably do a better job than me on the overall commit message.
(I probably would have taken care of this already on Thursday or Friday except that I was at the ONF Workday in Santa Clara. If you send a squashed patch then I'll do a final once-over on Monday and apply it then.) Thanks, Ben. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:55:49AM -0700, Romain Lenglet wrote: > Hi Ben, > Would you like me to send you a squashed patch, > or will you squash the patches yourself? > Thanks, > -- > Romain Lenglet > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> > > To: "Romain Lenglet" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:23:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ofp-actions: Add the NXAST_SAMPLE vendor action > > > > I snipped most of your responses, which look fine to me. Thanks. > > > > I see one place worth a more detailed response. > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 07:00:17PM -0700, Romain Lenglet wrote: > > > I wasn't sure about the policy regarding asserts, since there aren't > > > many in the code. > > > > I have mixed feelings about asserts. You can easily have too many of > > them, some asserts do not have much value (such as those that assert > > that a pointer is nonnull only a few lines above dereferencing that > > pointer), and some asserts make code much slower. Also, the > > consequences of failing an assertion (crashing your program) can be > > higher than the consequences of plowing ahead (sometimes not crashing). > > > > We don't ever compile without assertions, so assertions have to be > > cheap. > > > > These asserts seem OK to me though. > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
