Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators

On February 27, 2017 6:14:20 AM PST, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>On 02/27/2017 01:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2017-02-27 03:17:32 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> I'll work on getting slab committed first, and then review / edit /
>>> commit generation.c later. One first note there is that I'm
>wondering
>>> if generation.c is a too generic filename.
>>
>> And pushed slab and its usage. Will have a look at generation.c
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> - Andres
>>
>
>Gah. I don't want to annoy person who just committed my patch, but can
>you give more time when asking for feedback? I mean, sending a modified
>
>patch on Friday midnight, and committing on Monday noon does not really
>
>give much time to look at it.

Hm. The changes IMO weren't controversial (or surprising -most of them I had announced previously); I announced that I would when posting the review that I'd push the patch later that weekend. If I hadn't been tired after doing the review/editing I'd have just pushed right then and there. It's hard to find time and attention, so not introducing a week of feedback time is quite worthwhile. I listed the changes I made primarily for posterities sake. Most if not all committers make editorializing changed around commit, so that's not just me.

If you specifically want I can try to give you more time to look at an edited patch, but that'll mean things move slower. I won't promise not to make minor changed just before commit either way, I always do another round of review just before push.

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.