Re: shared-memory based stats collector

Thank you for the comments, Antonin, Tomas.

At Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:35:23 +0100, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<b38591e0-54ca-7a27-813b-0bf91a204c5b@2ndquadrant.com>
> 
> 
> On 10/05/2018 10:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > At Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:06:51 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote
in<20181002.160651.117284090.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 
> >> It doesn't work nor even compile since I failed to include some
> >> changes. The atached v6-0008 at least compiles and words.
> >>
> >> 0001-0007 are not attached since they are still aplicable on
> >> master head with offsets.
> > 
> > In this patchset 0001-0007 are still the same with the previous
> > version. I'll reorganize the whole patchset in the next version.
> > 
> > This is more saner version of previous v5-0008, which didn't pass
> > regression test. v6-0008 to v6-0010 are attached and they are
> > applied on top of v5-0001-0007.
> > 
> 
> BTW one more thing - I strongly recommend always attaching the whole
> patch series, even if some of the parts did not change.
> 
> Firstly, it makes the reviewer's life much easier, because it's not
> necessary to hunt through past messages for all the bits and resolve
> potential conflicts (e.g. there are two 0008 in recent messages).
> 
> Secondly, it makes http://commitfest.cputube.org/ work - it tries to
> apply patches from a single message, which fails when some of the parts
> are omitted.

Yeah, I know about the second point. About the second point, I'm
not sure which makes review easier confirming difference in all
files or finding not-modified portion from upthread. But ok, I'l
follow your suggestion. I'll attach the whole patches and add
note about difference.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center