On 3 February 2015 at 17:10, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? >> > nack: I don't think it is ok to accept something when we know it is incorrect. > >> 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
