From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20992B97
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:13:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2016 21:13:12 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,470,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="17881169"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
 by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2016 21:13:11 -0700
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:14:04 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20161010041404.GA1597@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1467752375-25984-1-git-send-email-zhe.tao@intel.com>
 <1467865627-23524-1-git-send-email-zhe.tao@intel.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F80E2779DA@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F80E2779DA@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] i40: fix the VXLAN TSO issue
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:13:14 -0000

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 03:58:57AM +0000, Wu, Jingjing wrote:
> NACK.
> 
> This fix has been done by a new one which is already merged:  http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15059/

Just want to let you know, that you don't have to NACK an old patchset. In
the process of the patchwork, ideally, the patch author should mark the old
one as "Superseded" once he send out a new version.

Meanwhile, the committers might/could also do the mark while reviewing the
patchwork. I have done that a lot, since I didn't see any one submitted
virtio/vhost patches have done that before :/

	--yliu