Hi Hung, Reviewed the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On 2016/07/11 12:33 PM, Hung Nguyen wrote: > Summary: imm: Fix cppcheck performance warnings [#1912] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1912 > Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Neel > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 5.1 > Development branch: 5.1 > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > > changeset aa42c6c3b027fd7d951edc3503caaf3fe1746099 > Author: Hung Nguyen <hung.d.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:09:01 +0700 > > imm: Fix cppcheck stlcstr warnings [#1912] > > Fix cppcheck stlcstr warnings. > > changeset 93b4a4f7aa283526d46eec5d868b7d296dab2f3b > Author: Hung Nguyen <hung.d.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:31:49 +0700 > > imm: Fix cppcheck stlSize warnings [#1912] > > Fix cppcheck stlSize warnings. For standard containers, empty() is > faster > than size(). Use empty() instead of size() when checking for emptiness. > > changeset 691172cd3c32adde3eefd2aa568e12d9a59b75ec > Author: Hung Nguyen <hung.d.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:51:17 +0700 > > imm: Fix cppcheck postfixOperator warnings [#1912] > > Fix cppcheck postfixOperator warnings. For non-primitive types, pre- > increment is faster than post-increment. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/common/immsv/immpbe_dump.cc | 2 +- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immloadd/imm_loader.cc | 28 > ++++++++++++++-------------- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 48 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmSearchOp.cc | 4 ++-- > osaf/tools/safimm/immcfg/imm_import.cc | 34 > +++++++++++++++++----------------- > osaf/tools/safimm/immdump/imm_dumper.cc | 6 +++--- > osaf/tools/safimm/immdump/imm_xmlw_dump.cc | 4 ++-- > 7 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from reviewers. > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
