[netsniff-ng] Re: [PATCH 0/2] flowtop: Move & refactor walk_processes(...) to proc.c

2016-12-14 Thread Vadim Kochan
Hi Tobias,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Tobias Klauser  wrote:
> On 2016-12-13 at 02:36:00 +0100, Vadim Kochan  wrote:
>> Add proc_find_by_inode(...) to find pid & it's command line by inode.
>> The main motivation for this is to have process specific function located
>> in proc.c and only call it from flowtop.c.
>>
>> proc_find_by_inode(...) its just a refactored version of walk_processes(...)
>> from the flowtop.c.
>>
>> Vadim Kochan (2):
>>   proc: Add function for find process by inode
>>   flowtop: Replace walk_processes(...) by proc_find_by_inode(...)
>
> IMO, these could be combined into one patch as this makes it easier to
> immediately verify that the logic of the function wasn't changed.
> Splitting it up into two patches makes this verification unnecessarily
> cumbersome.
>
> Further comments will follows as replies to the individual patches.

Thanks for the review, I will fix comments and squash patches into one.
It is still not easy to learn zen of patch splitting:)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to netsniff-ng+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


[netsniff-ng] Re: [PATCH 0/2] flowtop: Move & refactor walk_processes(...) to proc.c

2016-12-14 Thread Tobias Klauser
On 2016-12-13 at 02:36:00 +0100, Vadim Kochan  wrote:
> Add proc_find_by_inode(...) to find pid & it's command line by inode.
> The main motivation for this is to have process specific function located
> in proc.c and only call it from flowtop.c.
> 
> proc_find_by_inode(...) its just a refactored version of walk_processes(...)
> from the flowtop.c.
> 
> Vadim Kochan (2):
>   proc: Add function for find process by inode
>   flowtop: Replace walk_processes(...) by proc_find_by_inode(...)

IMO, these could be combined into one patch as this makes it easier to
immediately verify that the logic of the function wasn't changed.
Splitting it up into two patches makes this verification unnecessarily
cumbersome.

Further comments will follows as replies to the individual patches.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to netsniff-ng+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.