[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Fri Mar 1 18:15:27 CET 2019


On 10/27/2017 4:31 PM, pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com (De Lara Guarch, Pablo)
wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> Pablo,
>>
>> 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?
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Yes, that patch was accepted.

Hi Pablo, Mike,

The patch is remaining from 2017 and sitting on the patchwork without any comment.

I am marking the patchset as rejected, if they are still relevant please send a
new version on top of latest repo.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

For reference patches:
https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27668/
https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27669/
https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27670/
https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27671/

> 
> Thanks,
> Pablo
> 
>>
>> regards,
>> mts.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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
>> previously.
>>
>> Mike, could you send another patchset, that is rebased on top of the latest
>> code?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pablo
> 
> 



More information about the dev mailing list