X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-r929098 (2010-03-30) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.4.0-r929098 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o44NcPSd261852 for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 18:38:25 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1273016432-059c023d0000-S8gJnT X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CED5A30E9B3 for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (mail.aconex.com [203.89.202.182]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ubroaVoCwwqCGyml for ; Tue, 04 May 2010 16:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postoffice2.aconex.com (Spam & Virus Firewall) with ESMTP id CA91850DE35; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (postoffice.yarra.acx [192.168.102.1]) by postoffice2.aconex.com with ESMTP id fcgoI63VqjyS3piG; Wed, 05 May 2010 09:40:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com (gatekeeper.yarra.acx [192.168.102.10]) by postoffice.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C5DA50264; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:37:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1E14886B5; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aconex.com Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gatekeeper.aconex.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWmxgRFxw8Ze; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-au.aconex.com (mail-au.aconex.com [192.168.102.12]) by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01894886B0; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-au.aconex.com (mail-au.aconex.com [192.168.102.12]) by mail-au.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00416C901A5; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:40:21 +1000 (EST) From: Nathan Scott To: kenj@internode.on.net Cc: pcp@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1688754248.60991273016421891.JavaMail.root@mail-au> In-Reply-To: <1273009170.22330.53.camel@bozo.localdomain> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [pcp] Culling code from libpcp Subject: Re: [pcp] Culling code from libpcp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [203.89.192.141] X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.18_GA_3011.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/5.0.18_GA_3011.RHEL5_64) X-Barracuda-Connect: mail.aconex.com[203.89.202.182] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1273016433 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0001 1.0000 -2.0205 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.29080 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Status: Clean ----- "Ken McDonell" wrote: > I'm suggesting that we remove all the asynchronous PMAPI extensions > from libpcp as part of a PCP 4.0 goal. > ... > 5. there is zero QA coverage for the asynchronous routines (I was > recently doing some gcov analysis in pmns.c which brings this issue > into stark relief and triggered this mail). Sounds good to me. I wonder if there's any other completely unused routines too (maybe the QA gcov would help find those too? or at least be a starting point for making a list). cheers. -- Nathan