Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

["Wei, FangfangX" <fangfangx.wei@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,
I find that the states of patches are RFC, Accepted, Changes Requested, Deferred, Superseded and New. I plan to re-run the patch， the state of which is New. Is that OK?

Best Regards
Fangfang Wei

-----Original Message-----
From: ci [mailto:ci-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 11:35 PM
To: Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

Qian,

There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped in the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be considered as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the failure was already there.

Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run the tests for the recent pending patches?
Note that the patchwork result will be updated when sending a new report for the same patch with the same test label.


-----------------------------------

Objet : Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD Date : jeudi 9 février 2017, 16:22:37 De : Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>  À : Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com> CC : dev@dpdk.org, slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com

2017-02-07 10:44, Daniel Mrzyglod:
> This patch fixes error: implicit declaration of function 'getline'
> 
> Fixes: f8be1786b1b8 ("app/crypto-perf: introduce performance test 
> application")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>

Applied, thanks