From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF4FDE0 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:49:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2016 01:49:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,425,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="45481958" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.159]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2016 01:49:56 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:49:55 +0025 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:49:55 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20160210094955.GA4084@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1450193851-9100-4-git-send-email-lsun@ezchip.com> <1753191.PlZlSmjA8r@xps13> <1576967.tgJNBhtfpx@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1576967.tgJNBhtfpx@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] driver/net/mpipe: support native build on tilegx platform. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:50:00 -0000 On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-02-09 21:15, Liming Sun: > > Looks like this patch serie has been merged into dpdk-next-net/rel_16_04. > > What would be the usual way to submit changes for new comments? Would it be incremental changes (new commit) based on previous one? Thanks. > > Good question. > I think it's better if Bruce drops or reverts the commits from dpdk-next-net > to let you re-submit a better new version. > Bruce, do you agree? Unless there is something actually broken - that was previously working - by this patchset I'd rather not revert it. This patch was sitting acked for a month which is a reasonable time for comments before applying it. Allowing people to step up post-apply and look for patches being reverted is not something we want to encourage IMHO. There are already too many reviews being done at the last minute, and allowing reverts may make that situation worse, while applying acked patches within a reasonable time - irrespective of whether people subsequently find issues with them - should encourage earlier reviews, and makes it easier on contributors. Therefore I'd rather see any additional enhancements or changes done as incremental patches on top of this set. Regards, /Bruce