2015-07-03 09:16, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: > 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?
Yes please. Thanks for your involvement.
