On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 09:34:12AM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 7/10/25 2:06 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 12:39:15PM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote:
> > > On 6/16/25 10:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > We've discussed a number of times of how some heap names are bad, but
>
On 7/10/25 2:06 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 12:39:15PM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 6/16/25 10:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
We've discussed a number of times of how some heap names are bad, but
not really what makes a good heap name.
Let's document what we expect the heap
On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 12:39:15PM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 6/16/25 10:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > We've discussed a number of times of how some heap names are bad, but
> > not really what makes a good heap name.
> >
> > Let's document what we expect the heap names to look like.
> >
>
On 6/16/25 10:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
We've discussed a number of times of how some heap names are bad, but
not really what makes a good heap name.
Let's document what we expect the heap names to look like.
Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard
---
Changes in v2:
- Added
On 6/16/25 8:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> We've discussed a number of times of how some heap names are bad, but
> not really what makes a good heap name.
>
> Let's document what we expect the heap names to look like.
>
> Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard
> ---
> Chan
