From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503864CA6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Oct 2018 10:35:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92BD20F12;
 Wed,  3 Oct 2018 04:35:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Oct 2018 04:35:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
 bh=mKqwVXGibAHTDIRWfjazfkV3nKjjPWYBc1ZDArjn8VE=; b=Hhi4DAdVtNXx
 +PK0xadFiPTSGBm1xB9hhUI3njGflfd0jwehReG6UM91KaZqVgx8fRBmU/yVruMT
 gg+5/cl+uXab6M3xrFsQ2xT9BSqMMfW2muM3lH2+PqCCGPQB3RFSSbsQnJFOgg0Z
 waebE4TDGB5dg/azFrQAVeUtg3JrXjI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=mKqwVXGibAHTDIRWfjazfkV3nKjjPWYBc1ZDArjn8
 VE=; b=guoiSi12peHVXEkivo+/Cq2YTn55CtfDtUZt877MBJ6V/00zuE+hNzgxm
 DMiMst08ZdFpW0YWjgkMvPT5mV0tMUcpmygatIgLZbqrUgw1YhJyWcmV/s1wEfai
 fHjfekD34RDdiVbJtHtt/6GqpIkzh/GrEPRV8gVn7eCPMJT0PayhPPe7JU9e3bDM
 a1YzbIjGwfK+VP0cMsHO2hXHuiQ1ki6pheJI2yVDQBmcGysVoVgqnSAb5/ygRSKH
 WVvIuPOt+fqHnP599X1GwSjEMJX4Y438TXpSWBQPBsQXVpQTX89rbl63DxZPSWf9
 0DouSEaGLxaDp7YkcAmCNxu0iHqjg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:O3-0WzCVzzRtJAnBa8mqTjgjILwtEwYgRvG_Bl8nuPPf_G7LrCruFg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O3-0Wy9TO0cAqmCqDNC_mfr1vGJQdYNqWumuN24yj7FBROQyWpXeaQ>
 <xmx:O3-0W7WjJLWvxhINkk7zvvAR-NbXJdLz-cpnGzy6D_cDrFc_GfQRjg>
 <xmx:O3-0W8cnzAa47ivwA8D4x566N6GQXTjhbmN9vplFNCKbeGSJQr0VKg>
 <xmx:O3-0W9_k7CK-bYmuaG7PhpIahb15R9GnCSslueO45yMjZwy0Ab__Hg>
 <xmx:O3-0WwBxWXA5iHFPD_jpGDG_IBGmB5kpj6WcGlfuIX9_uJBnueT4Ag>
 <xmx:O3-0W2ARI5dDyzeW4gPCt-0vTgyEkdE-5XRfYzjR3Ti-GpyKQxBHMA>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 244F8102DE;
 Wed,  3 Oct 2018 04:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org, shahafs@mellanox.com, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 10:35:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4436965.z0pH4WHX7F@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20181003075712.GA2003@jerin>
References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <d3a4c3e0-2c04-a999-8b6d-6cdc9f24bee6@solarflare.com>
 <20181003075712.GA2003@jerin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
	checksum definition
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 08:35:08 -0000

03/10/2018 09:57, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> > 1. I'm not sure that it is OK that mbuf and ethdev changes go in one patch.
> >    It seems typically mbuf changes go separately and mbuf changes should
> >    be applied to main dpdk repo.
> 
> I don't have strong opinion on this. If there are no other objection, I
> will split the patch further as mbuf and ethdev as you pointed out.

Those flags are handled in mbuf and ethdev.
As it is closely related, I think it is better to get the changes
in one patch, as you did.