On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 20:08 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On 11/16/2014 08:40 PM, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote:
> > Finally, please don't ignore the rest of my message. Even if my patch
> > isn't that good there are lots of ways to compromise and improve it
> > such as adding tests,
Hi Steven,
On 11/16/2014 08:40 PM, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote:
Finally, please don't ignore the rest of my message. Even if my patch
isn't that good there are lots of ways to compromise and improve it
such as adding tests, annotations and making it clearer.
I think you were already given idea
Hello,
My intent with my patch was to make things easier to understand
because it reduces the size of critical sections to more
understandable bite sized chunks. My patch would make the purposes of
the critical sections more obvious and understandable. In making this
patch I may have made a few mi
On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 04:44 +, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote:
> > What's the benefit here? Seems very risky at very little gain.
> >
> > The juice ain't worth the squeeze. NAK
>
> Hello,
>
> It is fair to argue that these changes are too tiny to be very
> meaningful for performance but the othe
> What's the benefit here? Seems very risky at very little gain.
>
> The juice ain't worth the squeeze. NAK
Hello,
It is fair to argue that these changes are too tiny to be very
meaningful for performance but the other goal of this patch was also
to make the code look cleaner and easier for me an
Hello, thank you for the criticism.
> It's probably better to do this as three or four separate patches.
Really? Alright if you insist I'll do the next version as multiple
patches.
> Well yes, that's what EMFILE means but "too_many_open_files" doesn't
> make sense in this context!
Fair enough,
On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 05:40 +, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote:
> This shouldn't be too controversial. I simply looked for where there
> was a tiny bit of waste in the message queue code.
What's the benefit here? Seems very risky at very little gain.
The juice ain't worth the squeeze. NAK
--
To
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 05:40:37 + (GMT) Steven Stewart-Gallus
wrote:
> This shouldn't be too controversial. I simply looked for where there
> was a tiny bit of waste in the message queue code.
>
It's probably better to do this as three or four separate patches.
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/i
This shouldn't be too controversial. I simply looked for where there
was a tiny bit of waste in the message queue code.
Signed-off-by: Steven Stewart-Gallus
---
diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 4fcf39a..aa3f903 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -278,16 +278,29 @@ stati
9 matches
Mail list logo
