AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Bill.Fisher@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	4B573E1D.1030003@lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:03:02 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Fisher, Bill" <Bill.Fisher@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: tuxrx Branch Change List 34077 review requested]; Max's review
 comments
Message-ID: <20100120100302.3dace18d@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B573E1D.1030003@lsi.com>
References: <4B573E1D.1030003@lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don't worry about it.  Fix anything that is trivial, and the rest just
plan on talking it through with him when you get back.


On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:32:13 -0700 William Fisher <bill.fisher@lsi.com>
wrote:

> Andy:
> 
> 1) Ok, 90% is complaining about the vsvr pointer being
> changed to an index and doing a lookup/hold
> operation followed by a vs_rele() call.
> 
> 2) The other is the removal of req_hdr_t from the
> basic nfx-defs.h which requires the whole
> world to know about the request header
> structure. This is a NON-STARTER
> for me, I am not going back, we have
> spent huge amounts of time trying
> to get header file isolation. This
> is a loose adding this back.
> 
> 3) You can argue with Max over the proper
> definition of "bool/boolean".
> 
> 4) typalooza.h now longer exists
> the majority of it is now in
> nfx-types-extra.h, seems he missed
> this point. I have made these changes
> to preserve your editing.
> 
> 5) The use of acpu_conn is now
>     tied to the tpl layer and the skb
>     chain accumulation. The NFS/CIFS
>    code has there own connection block
>    definitions and they get the socket pointer
>    hence I don't think his comments are
>    warranted, since 99% of his comments
>    are cenetered on NOT change anything.
> 
>   If the BSD networking code was so great
>   in EEE, we wouldn't have to do any work.
>   Hence he is not conversant with the details
>   of Linux kernel networking and the new
>    virtual server implementation.
> 
> In general very few comments with much
> technical weight I MHO..
> 
> -- Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
