> -----Original Message----- > From: Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:37 PM > To: David Marchand <[email protected]>; Van Haaren, Harry > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]>; > Morten Brørup <[email protected]>; nd <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] service: reduce statistics overhead for parallel > services
<snip> > > Now, looking at this series, without a cover letter, I had to guess. > > I saw it is linked to the v1 patch. > > I "assumed" it was then an alternative, since you had comments on > > Harry v3 patch, or at least Harry would reply and we could conclude. > > > > Sorry for failing to mention enough context in the patchset. I assumed > it was Harry and not you that would resolve this issue. Harry's patchset > fixes the statistics bug related to MT safe services, but does not > address the performance issue discussed. So Harry's patchset makes sense > on its own. It also adds a performance test case. > > I believe the test case is the only thing left of Harry's improvements > after my patchset is applied. > > My patchset was meant as an improvement on what Harry already had done, > not as an alternative. > > This is all up the maintainer of course, but it seems to me that Harry's > patchset should go in first, and then mine. > > If Harry or you so prefer, I can rework my patchset to apply cleanly > against current main (i.e., w/o Harry's patches). I'd like to keep the performance unit-test, but otherwise your patchset is good with me. (Will test/review the series asap). > > So what do we do? > > Should I understand that your comments on Harry series can be ignored > > and I proceed with all this? > > > > My comments were minor, except those that relates to the issue that my > follow-up patchset addresses. > > > I hope it applies cleanly. I have no strong opinion here; whatever is easier for maintainers.
