From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032D8A0096 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:34:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8944A1B947; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:34:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F835424 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:34:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jun 2019 07:34:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from yexl-server.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.67.110.206]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2019 07:34:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:25:33 +0800 From: Ye Xiaolong To: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" , Ferruh Yigit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20190603142533.GA89110@intel.com> References: <20190520101841.17708-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190531062247.5952-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190531074320.GA44917@intel.com> <9167c740527b4f008ae6a652d3aff84c@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9167c740527b4f008ae6a652d3aff84c@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10] net/memif: introduce memory interface (memif) PMD 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 06/03, Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ye Xiaolong >> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 9:43 AM >> To: Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) >> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10] net/memif: introduce memory interface >> (memif) PMD >> >> Minor nit, this should be a V1 instead of V10 after your RFC. > >I'll keep that in mind, but what version number should I use in the next patch, since I did use V10 in this one? > I am not sure what's DPDK convention for this case, Maybe Ferruh can suggest on this. Thanks, Xiaolong >Thanks, >Jakub