On 02/07/2015 13:14, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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 > > Fine with me. Do you need a new version of the patches with that change?
Sergio
