My review simply says I'm happy with it. Others can NAK it if they choose.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Anders Roxell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-02-03 11:16, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > For this series: > > > > Reviewed-by: Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > >> + * > > > > >> + * CPU number where the thread is currently running. CPU > numbering is > > > > system > > > > >> + * specific. > > > > >> + * > > > > >> + * @return CPU number > > > > >> + */ > > > > >> +int odp_cpu(void); > > > > > Why not call thus function odp_cpu_num()? (or odp_cpu_number)? > > > > > "odp_cpu" is missing something and does not lead to direct > > > > > understanding of what the function does or returns. > > > > > > > > I become odp_cpu_id() in the second patch. > > > > Why not to name it like this in the first patch? > > > > > > I rebased the second commit (should have rebased the first). The commit > > > history is not perfect, but I think we can live with that. > > Why do we think this is good enough when others have to redo their > patches? > > Cheers, > Anders >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
