On 13 November 2014 06:30, Anders Roxell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2014-11-13 11:12, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: > > On 11/13/2014 01:21 AM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > > *** Buffer/Packet API Patch v3 *** > > > > > > v3 corrects some errors in the packaging of v2 and also changes > > > odp_buffer_alloc() and odp_packet_alloc() to by default allocate > > > buffers/packets of the default size set when the buffer pool was > > > created. > > > > > > Bill Fischofer (3): > > > Doxygen Images for ODP v1.0 Buffer/Packet API support > > > Code changes to other modules to work with v1.0 Buffer/Packet APIs > > > Code changes for ODP v1.0 Buffer/Packet APIs > > > > A few recommendations about series formatting: > > - Instead of "[PATCHv3 ODP v1.0 Buffer/Packet APIs 0/3] *** v3 Fix Level > ***" > > better to name the first patch as "[PATCHv3 0/3] ODP v1.0 > Buffer/Packet APIs" > > - The rest of patches have to be prefixed with "[PATCHv3 n/3]". > > - Anders may not agree here :) but IMO series should be split into > patches > > in a way it is going to be merged. I mean if we don't want to break a > > build in a middle of the series, then patches 2 and 3 should be > > squashed. > > I agree with you that we should have buildable patches. > Agree, plus more in my opinion just building is not enough unless it is an RFC 1. build 2. tests, examples need to run 3. warning clean in the compiler, checkpatch and doxygen > I think we should try to create this patches: > 1. images > 2. buffer pool management API + impl. > 3. buffer API + impl. > 4. packet API + impl. > > - If patch is not trivial it should have some commit message. > > Agree > > > Cheers, > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
