From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8BDAD91 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 01:07:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2016 16:07:03 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,524,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="927486878" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.122.33.133]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 01 Mar 2016 16:07:02 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:07:01 +0025 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 00:07:01 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20160302000700.GA21644@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <987EE72691933347B9F0B5C19E71B5BB1F02E312@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <1565638.IGO4Cj2mt5@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1565638.IGO4Cj2mt5@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about patchset order. 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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:07:04 -0000 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