Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about patchset order.

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-02-23 16:17, Kobylinski, MichalX:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > I sent in January a patch-set that extends to 24 bits a next_hop field in lpm library:
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10249/
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10250/
> > 
> > also Jerin Jakob sent his patch-set with ARM architecture support in lpm library.
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10478/
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10479/
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10480/
> > 
> > Could you write please, in which order do you prefer to apply these two patch-sets?
> > This information will be helpful to predict the risk and estimate additional work.
> 
> Thanks for bringing up the LPM patches.
> I would prefer to follow the advice of Bruce who has well followed
> these interactions.

Hi all,

sorry, but I haven't been following the discussion as closely of late as
previously, hence the slow reply.

For what goes first, generally the more complex/bigger patchset should be merged
first, so I think the expansion of the next_hop field should therefore go in
first. Jerin's patches will then need to be rebased on it.


Regards,
/Bruce