On 08.08.24 02:21, Barry Song wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 12:01 PM Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:59 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
"p" means "pointer to something", rename it to a more meaningful
identifier - "si".
Hi Berry,
I am fine with the reason for renaming it to something more
meaningful. On the other hand this will create a huge conflict on the
next iteration of the swap allocator series. There is not much urgency
in the renaming variable, right? Just try to figure out a way to
coordinate it better. As it is, I am not sure how to handle the next
refresh of swap allocator series, should I revert the rename or submit
a refresh of patches with rename conflict resolved, effectively foldin
the rename patch.
right, it is not urgent. if you are going to make another iteration
for the swap allocation series. I am perfect fine that you can add
these two patches into your series? it should be fine as this patchset
obviously depends on Kairui's and Your work.
If it can be resolved within 5min of merging I think we shouldn't bother
about delaying this.
I assume it can be resolved within 5min of merging ;)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
