Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > oh boy, yes I fixed that in my local patch collection. I'm waiting for > a few hours (days ?) to see if there will be some more comments, I've > integrated every single one done here already (and some I had on IRC > too), and I'll repost a new clean series that I intend to be a real > proposal for inclusion. Ah, I actually did the single trivial fix-up (ALLOC_GROW) and have been looking at it, but I'll discard it. Thanks. > And yes, this patch is a perfect example of the gain we have to share > a common buffer API. The code looks (at least to me) way nicer, and if > you look in the details, we perform as many memory allocations, copies, > and so on as in the previous version. Wait. What is your point in saying this? Is that a good thing to do "as many"? "API is cleaned-up and it is much easier to read but we do not do more than before" is certainly a *BIG* plus, so perhaps that is what you meant, but when I first read it I thought you were saying "we are not optimizing it at all" in a negative sense. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
