From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mempool: add external mempool manager
	support
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:04:59 +0100
Message-ID: <56D94FBB.7000808@6wind.com>
References: <1453829155-1366-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1455634095-4183-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1455634095-4183-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <56C71913.10901@6wind.com> <56D4275A.4070502@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FB829D6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  4 Mar 2016 10:05:08 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <56D4275A.4070502@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi David,

On 02/29/2016 12:11 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>> Also, I'm sorry but it seems that several comments or question I've made
>> in http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032706.html are
>> not addressed.
>>
>> Examples:
>> - putting some part of the patch in separate commits
>> - meaning of "rt_pool"
>> - put_pool_bulk unclear comment
>> - should we also have get_pool_bulk stats?
>> - missing _MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD() in mempool_bulk()
>> - why internal in rte_mempool_internal.h?
>> - why default in rte_mempool_default.c?
>> - remaining references to stack handler (in a comment)
>> - ...?
>>
>> As you know, doing a proper code review takes a lot of time. If I
>> have to re-check all of my previous comments, it will take even
>> more. I'm not saying all my comments require a code change, but in case
>> you don't agree, please at least explain your opinion so we can debate
>> on the list.
>>
> Hi Olivier,
>    Sincerest apologies. I had intended in coming back around to your
> original comments after refactoring the code. I will do that now. I did
> take them into consideration, but I see now that I need to do further
> work, such as a clearer name for rt_pool, etc.  I will respond to your
> original email.

I thought some comments were ignored :)
So no problem in that case, thanks for clarifying.

Olivier