Hi Robert,
I'm back in the office now; I just submitted an updated patch series to
address some of the points you made below. I'll add responses in-line:
> -Original Message-
> From: Sanford, Robert [mailto:rsanf...@akamai.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:53 AM
> To: Carrillo,
> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> 21/03/2019 02:01, Carrillo, Erik G:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Thanks for the review and suggestions. I’m out of the office on bonding
>> leave for the next few weeks, but I’ll update the patch to address your
>> points below when I return.
21/03/2019 02:01, Carrillo, Erik G:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for the review and suggestions. I’m out of the office on bonding
> leave for the next few weeks, but I’ll update the patch to address your
> points below when I return.
This is unfortunate.
This patch was waiting for reviews for month
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the review and suggestions. I’m out of the office on bonding leave
for the next few weeks, but I’ll update the patch to address your points below
when I return.
Thanks,
Erik
> On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:53 AM, Sanford, Robert wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> I have a few questions
Hi Erik,
I have a few questions and comments on this patch series.
1. Don't you think we need new tests (in test/test/) to verify the
secondary-process APIs?
2. I suggest we define default_data_id as const, and explicitly set it to 0.
3. The outer for-loop in rte_timer_alt_manage() touches beyon
Currently, the timer library uses a per-process table of structures to
manage skiplists of timers presumably because timers contain arbitrary
function pointers whose value may not resolve properly in other
processes.
However, if the same callback is used handle all timers, and that
callback is onl
6 matches
Mail list logo
