[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/9] eal: move librte_malloc to eal/common

[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?

Sergio