> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This patchset supersed last patchset. > >> > >> Changes: > >> - removed merged patches; > >> - added some patches to the set. > >> > >> Alon's patch is removed from patchset, there is no reason to keep > >> sending it all the time as already on the ML not changed. > >> > >> Looks like today I added too few patches. > >> > >> Marc-André Lureau (10): > >> server: remove dispatching creation of worker channels > > > > As you said, Christophe is going to split this one, right? > > Thing so. We decided that who suggested the split should take care of it if not explicitly said differently. > >> worker: move delta computation > > > > Was previously ACKED. > > Yes, I keep it as is quite bound to the next which was not acked. > >> worker: move shadow_new() and container_new() > > > > There is a problem with this patch, already pointed out in the first > > round of reviews Today. > > Ok, I'll check it. > >> worker: rename red_pipe_add_drawable* to dcc_add_drawable* > >> worker: remove unused WORKER_TO_DCC macro > > > > These two are the ones you split, right? So, they need review. > > Yes > >> worker: move remove worker from WORKER_FOREACH_DCC_SAFE > > > > Already ACKED. But I'd like to ask you to change the commit log "move > > remove worker ... " is a bit confusing ... > > So I was lucky not to push it straight away! Could "worker: rename WORKER_FOREACH_DCC_SAFE macro to FOREACH_DCC" sound reasonable? > >> worker: move some compress stats to display > >> worker: use RED_CHANNEL_CLIENT for dcc > >> worker: use more RED_CHANNEL_CLIENT > >> worker: use more DCC_TO_WORKER > > > > These for patches are new and they need review, right? > > Yes. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel