2014-05-09 09:24, Sanford, Robert:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> >Some patches like this one are not yet reviewed because efforts were
> >focused
> >on release 1.6.0r2. This enhancement must be integrated in 1.7.0.
> >I know that patchwork service is desired and I hope it will be available
> >soon.
>
> I
Hi Thomas,
>Some patches like this one are not yet reviewed because efforts were
>focused
>on release 1.6.0r2. This enhancement must be integrated in 1.7.0.
>I know that patchwork service is desired and I hope it will be available
>soon.
I realized that you guys had been very busy with 1.6.0r2.
Hi Robert,
2014-05-08 16:17, Sanford, Robert:
> I haven't heard anything regarding this patch.
> In general, how does your team keep track of outstanding patch requests or
> RFCs?
If nobody complains, it means that everybody agree on the idea.
So it should be accepted after review.
Some patches
I haven't heard anything regarding this patch.
In general, how does your team keep track of outstanding patch requests or
RFCs?
Thanks,
Robert
>Here is our proposed patch:
>
>Lib rte_malloc stores free blocks in singly-linked lists.
>This results in O(n), i.e., poor performance when freeing
Here is our proposed patch:
Lib rte_malloc stores free blocks in singly-linked lists.
This results in O(n), i.e., poor performance when freeing memory
to a heap that contains thousands of free blocks.
A simple solution is to store free blocks on doubly-linked lists.
- Space-wise, we add one new
5 matches
Mail list logo
