2015-06-26 16:29, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ F: lib/librte_eal/common/* > F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/* > F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/ > F: doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst > +F: doc/guides/prog_guide/malloc_lib.rst > F: app/test/test_alarm.c > F: app/test/test_atomic.c > F: app/test/test_byteorder.c > @@ -97,6 +98,8 @@ F: app/test/test_spinlock.c > F: app/test/test_string_fns.c > F: app/test/test_tailq.c > F: app/test/test_version.c > +F: app/test/test_malloc.c > +F: app/test/test_func_reentrancy.c
I think we should keep a separate maintainer section for memory allocator in EAL. I suggest this: Memory allocation M: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_mem* F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_malloc.h F: lib/librte_eal/common/*malloc* F: lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_mem* F: lib/librte_eal/common/eal_hugepages.h F: doc/guides/prog_guide/malloc_lib.rst F: app/test/test_malloc.c F: app/test/test_func_reentrancy.c > Secondary process > K: RTE_PROC_ > @@ -155,12 +158,6 @@ F: lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/ > Core Libraries > -------------- > > -Dynamic memory > -F: lib/librte_malloc/ > -F: doc/guides/prog_guide/malloc_lib.rst > -F: app/test/test_malloc.c > -F: app/test/test_func_reentrancy.c > - > Memory pool
