From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.varghese@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of
 proc-info tool
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 05:21:34 +0000
Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF1A4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
References: <20181203055000.39012-2-vipin.varghese@intel.com>
 <3AEA2BF9852C6F48A459DA490692831F2A3EA1F0@irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DA895@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
 <1651608.RmD6NkZceM@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
 <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "stephen@networkplumber.org"
 <stephen@networkplumber.org>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 "Byrne, Stephen1" <stephen1.byrne@intel.com>, "Patel, Amol"
 <amol.patel@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Pattan, Reshma"
 <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E175B5F34
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:21:40 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1651608.RmD6NkZceM@xps>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

HI Thomas,

Snipped

> > > Small nits
> > > 9th patch in this set is doc. So above info need to be corrected.
> > > if you are addressing my earlier comment of separating out mempool
> > > element iteration changes in to separate new patch 9/10 .Please keep
> > > my ack in next version
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out, Like updated in email and chat I am not
> planning to split it. Hence no version 8.
>=20
> So, no ack and no merge?
>=20
> Looking at the first patches + doc patch, the split is not meaningful.
> You should merge doc and option parsing in the related patches.
> For instance, parsing and doc of "tm" option should be in the "tm" patch.
>=20
>=20

I did not follow you request. Are you stating, for each functionality I sho=
uld be updating document rather than 1 document update after adding the new=
 functions? If former is true I am not able to find such reasoning stated i=
n guideline or documentation or from the maintainer.=20

Thanks
Vipin Varghese