[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key
De Lara Guarch, Pablo
pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com
Fri Oct 27 17:31:57 CEST 2017
> From: Mike Stolarchuk [mailto:mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 4:00 PM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key
> Also, what about the other patch?
> the use of a static variable in a recursive call? obviously incorrect for a
> threaded environment ... has that been accepted?
Yes, that patch was accepted.
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:10 AM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:59 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch,
> > Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; mstolarchuk <mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key
> > 18/08/2017 22:09, mstolarchuk:
> > > Improves consistency, allows identifcation of use-sites
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: mstolarchuk <mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com>
> > Any comment on this patch and others from the same author?
> Two of the patches submitted are actually the same, although they have a
> different enumeration.
> The patches look like they were part of two different patchsets, so it doesn't
> look right.
> Also, patch 6/6 is not applicable anymore, as a similar fix was sent
> Mike, could you send another patchset, that is rebased on top of the latest
More information about the dev