From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F903B5 for ; Mon, 15 May 2017 11:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 May 2017 02:29:03 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,344,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="1147869213" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2017 02:29:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:24:45 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20170515092445.GC3102@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20170512103303.93161-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <493e9af9-a800-4642-e40f-ab15e234d7ad@intel.com> <20170515091942.GB3102@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <85a9aa4c-8748-6cba-95f2-6419f649d590@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <85a9aa4c-8748-6cba-95f2-6419f649d590@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver/net: remove unnecessary macro for unused variables X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:29:05 -0000 On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:26:00AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/15/2017 10:19 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:17:43AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> On 5/12/2017 11:33 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>> remove __rte_unused instances that are not required. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Yuanhan, > >> > >> Does this kind of refactoring patches, specially the ones covering > >> multiple drivers, cause trouble (more conflicts) to you while getting > >> patches for stable trees? > > > > Yes, it's likely. > > > >> If so, I can postpone them through the end of integration deadline. > > > > I don't think it's necessary though. If a conflict happens, I will ask > > the author to do backport :) > > OK, thanks for clarifying ... > > So, result is, refactoring patches won't be pushed through end of the > release. Yes, I see no strong need for that. --yliu