This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 4/*] Generic string memchr and strnlen
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <wdijkstr at arm dot com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at ezchip dot com>, 'GNU C Library' <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:51:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/*] Generic string memchr and strnlen
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150724191248 dot GA2889 at domone> <004201d0c873$bd3b9fe0$37b2dfa0$ at com> <20150727165642 dot GA22842 at domone> <55B67BA7 dot 7030606 at ezchip dot com> <20150727232224 dot GA21851 at domone> <004b01d0c936$5f6ed3a0$1e4c7ae0$ at com> <20150812051245 dot GA16265 at domone> <005201d0d505$78b0cd70$6a126850$ at com> <20150812140702 dot GA21326 at domone> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508121651230 dot 20932 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:58:20PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:47:46PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > > > OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:07:35PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > > > > > OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:42:47PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > > > > > On 07/27/2015 12:56 PM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then could you review a generic patch that I am about to ping?
> > >
> > > Do you mean https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00443.html?
> > > I don't see a patch attached...
> > >
> > I wrote it long ago, here:
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-10/msg00201.html
> If a patch was posted so long ago that it isn't in patchwork, it
> effectively doesn't exist for reviewers. That means anything before
> 2014-03-14 (the oldest entry in patchwork).
> It's *also* the case that we have too many unreviewed patches in patchwork
> and not enough reviewers; I don't have any good solutions to that issue.
Yes, its mainly that I ping patches that I think important so number of
patches that work but I don't ping because there is something more
> It's *also* the case that any frequent contributors should be cleaning up
> their own patch state in patchwork so that superseded and committed
> patches are marked as such and reviewers can more readily find the most
> recent version of a patch. You have a particularly large number of
> patches shown there including what look like many successive variants of
> the same patch. As the submitter you're best placed to know which patches
> have been completely superseded / committed; please clean up the entries
> for your patches so that exactly one entry shows for the most recent
> version of each patch that has not been superseded / committed / rejected,
> and no entries show for superseded / committed rejected patch because they
> have been marked as such.
I do that semiregularly but didn't have time recently.