Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: add document for erasure_code software design #200

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

docularxu
Copy link
Contributor

This document provides a reverse engineered software design document
for the existing ISA-L erasure code (EC). Target audiences are engineers
who want to understand the erasure code algorithm and contribute
into ISA-L EC.

Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu [email protected]

grep reports both whitespace and dos formatting error on .png files, eg.
  File found with trailing whitespace: doc/images/Figure_erasure_code_update.png
  File found with dos formatting: doc/images/Figure_erasure_code_update.png

This patch skips format checking on .png files.

Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu <[email protected]>
This document provides a reverse engineered software design document
for the existing ISA-L erasure code (EC). Target audiences are engineers
who want to understand the erasure code algorithm and contribute
into ISA-L EC.

Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu <[email protected]>
@docularxu docularxu force-pushed the working_erasure_code_documentation branch from 6417bb6 to 59a22bc Compare February 8, 2022 06:25
@gbtucker
Copy link
Contributor

@docularxu thanks for thinking about documentation. We appreciate it.

I would like to focus on the user viewpoint for documentation. I have some functional description from users view but it is not complete (missing one unit) so haven't pushed yet. Looks like most of this pr is from the library porting or low-level library developer's viewpoint. I would like to push the user doc first and separate the detail relevant to them so they don't have to get confused by the implementation details they can ignore. I'll push in the next few days and would appreciate if you can take a look.

@docularxu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gbtucker Hi, sure, I'd love to look into your document for the user viewpoint. That will be helpful for me too. Yes you are right that I am focused on a developer view, in deed, this document is based on my work when porting the erasure code to aarch64 SVE. And during my development work, I feels that a document of the design details can help others too.

One question to you though, do you still accept a developer viewpoint document after your user view description are submitted and merged? Of course I can tailor my commits accordingly to make the contents more focused and fit-in.

Thank you.

@docularxu thanks for thinking about documentation. We appreciate it.

I would like to focus on the user viewpoint for documentation. I have some functional description from users view but it is not complete (missing one unit) so haven't pushed yet. Looks like most of this pr is from the library porting or low-level library developer's viewpoint. I would like to push the user doc first and separate the detail relevant to them so they don't have to get confused by the implementation details they can ignore. I'll push in the next few days and would appreciate if you can take a look.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants