From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CED8E90
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:53:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 07:53:04 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="840862610"
Received: from dwdohert-dpdk.ir.intel.com ([163.33.213.167])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 07:53:03 -0800
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Andriy Berestovskyy <aber@semihalf.com>
References: <1449580985-2692-1-git-send-email-aber@semihalf.com>
 <1630221.0CJlf5Jkii@xps13> <1485531.tGOVgyf9lb@xps13>
From: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Message-ID: <566EE597.3090200@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:51:51 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1485531.tGOVgyf9lb@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bond: fix LACP mempool size
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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, 14 Dec 2015 15:53:05 -0000

On 14/12/15 14:07, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-10 22:50, Thomas Monjalon:
>> Please Declan,
>> Could you check these patches from Andriy
>> and tell how safe it is for 2.2?
>
> Declan, you have just acked 2 patches from Andriy without telling
> how safe they are for 2.2.
> Also we hadn't notice there is no Signed-off-by lines in these patches.
>
> Andriy, could you confirm your Signed-off-by according to the
> Developer's Certificate of Origin?
> (see http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)
>


Hey Thomas, sorry I didn't notice the lack of a sign-off, and git didn't 
complain when I applied them, which I expected it would. Both change 
sets look like they should be safe for inclusion in 2.2 as they are both 
addressing valid issues but they do not effect the expected behavior of 
the bonding library. I've also verified that all the bonding test unit 
cases are also still passing, so they look good to me.

Regards
Declan