Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix void function returning a value

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 1:46 PM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:23:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> > Hello Bruce,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:21 PM Andre Muezerie
> > <andremue@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > v2:
> > >  * Updated commit messages to follow standard format.
> > >
> > > This patch avoids warnings like the one below emitted by MSVC, and is
> > > needed to get the code to compile cleanly with MSVC.
> > >
> > > ../drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c(139):
> > >     warning C4098: 'idpf_singleq_rearm':
> > >     'void' function returning a value
> > >
> > > Andre Muezerie (2):
> > >   drivers/common: fix void function returning a value
> > >   drivers/net: fix void function returning a value
> > >
> > >  drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c         |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx512.c       |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_avx2.c         |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/net/ice/ice_rxtx_vec_avx2.c           |  2 +-
> > >  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > I see the series is delegated to the main repo (Thomas).
> >
> > This touches only Intel drivers and the code deduplication effort you
> > started may conflict (though trivially) with such changes depending on
> > when it lands.
> >
> > Would you mind merging this fixes from Andre through the
> > next-net-intel tree, right now?
> > If so, please mark it as delegated to you in patchwork.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> Hi David,
>
> the code deduplication effort patchsets are similarly delegated to the main
> repo. I was assuming this was deliberate, but perhaps it isn't? I'm ok to

I suspect it was delegated to main because of the change on
devtools/check-git-log.sh.
But it is really only about net driver changes, so it should go either
through your or Stephen tree.
(we have enough patches waiting in main ;-))


> take these patches in next-net-intel, but just would like to confirm that
> neither you, Thomas or Stephen (as net maintainer) want to review the dedup
> work ahead of that initial merge?

I don't have an objection on this series (on the contrary, I am quite
happy to see such effort).
I'll have a deeper look at it, this afternoon.


-- 
David Marchand