[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 15/16] fm10k: use default mailbox message handler for pf

[Wang, Xiao W]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:17 AM
> To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
> Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 15/16] fm10k: use default mailbox message
> handler for pf
> 
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:31:05AM +0000, Wang, Xiao W wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 5:32 AM
> > > To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 15/16] fm10k: use default mailbox
> > > message handler for pf
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:36:00PM +0800, Wang Xiao W wrote:
> > > > The new share code makes fm10k_msg_update_pvid_pf function static,
> > > > so we can not refer to it now in fm10k_ethdev.c. The registered pf
> > > > handler is almost the same as the default pf handler, removing it
> > > > has no
> > > impact on mailbox.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
> > >
> > > What patch makes the function static, as we need to ensure that the
> > > build is not broken by having this patch in the wrong place in the patchset?
> > >
> > > Also, it seems strange having this patch in the middle of a series
> > > of base code updates - perhaps it should go first, so that all base
> > > code update patches can go one after the other.
> > >
> > > /Bruce
> >
> > It's the first patch in the patch set that makes the function static.
> 
> So does this patch not need to go before patch 1, if we can't refer to the
> function once patch one is applied?
> 
> /Bruce

OK, got it, I will revise my patch, thanks a lot for your comment.

Best Regards,
Wang, Xiao