From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6751F3B5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 11:26:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38])
 by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2017 02:26:02 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,344,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="87506363"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.81])
 ([10.237.220.81])
 by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2017 02:26:01 -0700
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
References: <20170512103303.93161-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <493e9af9-a800-4642-e40f-ab15e234d7ad@intel.com>
 <20170515091942.GB3102@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <85a9aa4c-8748-6cba-95f2-6419f649d590@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:26:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170515091942.GB3102@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 <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, 15 May 2017 09:26:03 -0000

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.

Thanks,
ferruh

> 
> 	--yliu
> 
>> But postponing them most probably will mean rebasing these patches
>> later, so if this is not causing any problem for you, please let me know
>> so that I can get them earlier.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh