[Spice-devel] [PATCH 00/10] Backported some patches from refactory branches (5th Nov) second

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> This patchset supersed last patchset.
> >>
> >> Changes:
> >> - removed merged patches;
> >> - added some patches to the set.
> >>
> >> Alon's patch is removed from patchset, there is no reason to keep
> >> sending it all the time as already on the ML not changed.
> >>
> >> Looks like today I added too few patches.
> >>
> >> Marc-André Lureau (10):
> >>   server: remove dispatching creation of worker channels
> >
> > As you said, Christophe is going to split this one, right?
> >

Thing so. We decided that who suggested the split should take
care of it if not explicitly said differently.

> >>   worker: move delta computation
> >
> > Was previously ACKED.
> >

Yes, I keep it as is quite bound to the next which was not acked.

> >>   worker: move shadow_new() and container_new()
> >
> > There is a problem with this patch, already pointed out in the first
> > round of reviews Today.
> >

Ok, I'll check it.

> >>   worker: rename red_pipe_add_drawable* to dcc_add_drawable*
> >>   worker: remove unused WORKER_TO_DCC macro
> >
> > These two are the ones you split, right? So, they need review.
> >

Yes

> >>   worker: move remove worker from WORKER_FOREACH_DCC_SAFE
> >
> > Already ACKED. But I'd like to ask you to change the commit log "move
> > remove worker ... " is a bit confusing ...
> >

So I was lucky not to push it straight away!

Could "worker: rename WORKER_FOREACH_DCC_SAFE macro to FOREACH_DCC"
sound reasonable?

> >>   worker: move some compress stats to display
> >>   worker: use RED_CHANNEL_CLIENT for dcc
> >>   worker: use more RED_CHANNEL_CLIENT
> >>   worker: use more DCC_TO_WORKER
> >
> > These for patches are new and they need review, right?
> >

Yes.

Frediano