pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New pdubuf-related QA failures

To: Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New pdubuf-related QA failures
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:18:21 +1100
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5501AC9B.9080907@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1179164386.4369398.1426124282232.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <5501AC9B.9080907@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
On 13/03/15 02:11, Dave Brolley wrote:
...
Sorry, if this was premature. I had read Ken's responses to Frank's
performance data as positive and I also read that Ken had pulled these
changes and reviewed them favourably.

Bit of a miscommunication here I think ... Frank did provide performance data for his pmwebd test cases (which looked encouraging early on in the work), we don't have any performance analysis for the pmcd-side cases at this stage AFAIK.

On the review side, I've only been pulling and reviewing the changes that are bugs Frank's found on the other code as a result of the pdubuf changes, so these are independent of the pdubuf implementation.

I have not reviewed the main pdubuf changes at all ... I was waiting for a "done" flag from Frank.

Frank ... what's the status of the code Dave's pulled into the main tree (in terms of being complete from your perspective)?

Maybe a case for a post-commit review here.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>