From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D845912 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:30:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x12so25717335wgg.31 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=eyaGRFCbPY6qThGjN1Ym6HTPZJOeqDud2Q0qiR0OI2w=; b=fUpZdigGVXG5BloenLN6Lv5A/VfpF/yQ5ja9kf6NvEjPQYNqc95xCioBUtd+Kt49JQ u3whgga/0H4ZW6k9kB3vbJjFuu+sUXXCk57GIxuqaaOdJo80GpszFFGMiZSXRczEIFBB 7e6PHj5aNlAuNDDgdQ+yG2Tbgvh/Cn0JmePN1Hmwnnad2LImgOp7jbG1bkdTHNvcvWvs wPG0kLVf5XzFyiUUIaY67Z6CF70CKPkKR3X/Hq4hoVwplBGZt5VfERdgjGq7bb+0MoDX /AH67Ue5edWgboOnRaTQy4w7HiILCZG6bPqIG5H7VKD6/3yJkF/dQfBn+rXqoa8iGXZ6 EUoA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUVZkkfUXHOoGxMla8kwA3i/sCd322Iz3vrL3Fv9WPgCdIkwRjlIxA37FJBuHd4pvnkVRa X-Received: by 10.194.185.167 with SMTP id fd7mr41593061wjc.108.1416246025342; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:40:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u5sm16151633wiz.9.2014.11.17.09.40.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:40:24 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier MATZ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:40:04 +0100 Message-ID: <18186821.VRp2StGXYp@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/3.17.2-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <546A2A69.5080004@6wind.com> References: <1415635166-1364-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <7C4248CAE043B144B1CD242D275626532FDFFE4E@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> <546A2A69.5080004@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "jigsaw@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/13] ixgbe: fix remaining pkt_flags variable size to 64 bits X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:30:10 -0000 2014-11-17 18:03, Olivier MATZ: > Hi Miroslaw, > > On 11/17/2014 05:47 PM, Walukiewicz, Miroslaw wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:03 PM > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com; Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; Liu, Jijiang; Liu, Yong; > >> jigsaw@gmail.com; Richardson, Bruce > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 02/13] ixgbe: fix remaining pkt_flags variable size to 64 > >> bits > >> > >> Since commit 4332beee9 "mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", the > >> packet flags are now 64 bits wide. Some occurences were forgotten in > >> the ixgbe driver. > > > > I think it should be present in separate patch. I do no not see any relation to TSO > > You are right, there is no relation with TSO. The reason why I initially > added it in the same patchset is because I discovered this bug while > implementing TSO and I wanted to avoid too much noise on the list. > > I can take out some patches from the series, but maybe it's too late > and it would confuse patchwork. > > Thomas, what do you think? In general, it's better to have only one feature in a patchset. It's not a real problem here because TSO is planned for release 1.8 and fixes are also welcome. So all the patches should enter in the coming days. By the way, there is no problem with patchwork. You are free to choose :) -- Thomas