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:<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E2CCD89@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:19:21 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Kozlovsky, Maxim" <Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: Please review
Message-ID: <20100310111921.5b047b0d@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E2CCD89@cosmail02.lsi.com>
References: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E2601BE@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100309094045.42ed9e09@ripper.onstor.net>
	<861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E2CC9CC@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100310095155.1a5191d5@ripper.onstor.net>
	<861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E2CCD89@cosmail02.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

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:15:42 -0700 "Kozlovsky, Maxim"
<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com> wrote:

> nfx-tree/code/sm-esm/esm.c
> 
> 
>      line 65 comment doesn't match anything nearby - maybe you think
> it does, but it doesn't seem to from the point of view of someone who
> just jumped into the code.  to me, deleting the "used to unregister"
>      part would actually make more sense.  or, instead, "... passed to
>      unregister function".  whatever.
> [MK] ok changed the comment.
> 
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-tests/sm-test-sm.sm
> 
>      >>add nfx-tree/code/sm-tests/sm-test-sm.sm
> 
>      lines 7-9 tws (trailing white space)
> [MK] ok
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-tests/sm-test.c
> 
>      >>add nfx-tree/code/sm-tests/sm-test.c
> 
>      could you add some comments at the top of this file: what does
>      it test, how does it work (is it loaded into the kernel, or runs
>      in userspace or ...)?
> [MK] ok
> 
> nfx-tree/code/ssc-tests/anpssctest.c
> 
> 
>      line 1431 can we not write any new tests that use sendagile?
>      unless it dovetails into RMC, that is.
> 
>      so the test won't work until RMC works.  that's an easy decision
>      to make, as it's just one less thing that has to be done to get
>      rid of sendAgile, which we are planning to do in tuxstor.
> [MK] Who is "we" doing the planning? Getting rid of sendagile is
> irrelevant to tuxstor and is not on the schedule. When it is going to
> be done, one more place will not make a difference. What is likely to
> happen, the interface will remain the same, only it will be made
> reliable. How would I know if the code works if I write a test that
> does not work?

It is on the schedule, you just can't see it yet because it hasn't
been assigned to anyone.  It's part of the "we're slipping, but we're
adding value" story.

I'm not going to insist, but just know you are adding work for yourself
or a teammate.
