From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4734CA0524 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:20:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417B04067B; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:20:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118594067B for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:20:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id q7so7209346wre.13 for ; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:20:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qhAC6oYA7YJv8t0plS/Jt6vYNnLObPhZALAhTx8N3W8=; b=iys+SdHMj0mkEotWmHLtOK7a4hl1aCJc7/axljbqjPtJLOo63ldXaGB93feE92ar7D JNl3FA/vUIkWhlYgyNEV2YDaF9LT3+weJc2rFcY1V4XZheeGEZOsrLjMhePbtS9uw1xC 1TiMJDLUe2J50jElEBLK0jiGLFno92BWtFxsm3agrk79yByCmA3EeI7Kvd8Lxp2ZorTY sHPhyQyILzt1xENZWTdXRxWjeXX5aUZ/jLK9vJnajnIKNnIO1FolQfB2oRcg3xENGRkD 2mEt7Da+iUuXmdxJFv4f+MhnRM03SfTa3Q3+77Px3n6suxNUoMXZ05MIkkoQAtAivJc5 cjxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qhAC6oYA7YJv8t0plS/Jt6vYNnLObPhZALAhTx8N3W8=; b=O7LLQImh43v7swJ//G3AqKsmuk2Zo7tLv8YyjFs5iQIUA2SRGgEenKfRnIGyUffKsl mxvG20LAfUojXYdLG7XkQf+ciCwEnDHXCQNvdnocj/hN9Khy5KTcyBIjWOTLejeASl6C p6Cd7D2ayhaNvN7dMx3ZBUqFFyVCuVXFS+ocqZD6ei8EAnSKNgcR21/V87jpNwLyVjUE M1lKSRU7SO9e7gaFlIedQJANZhGS9eMqqjwMZgmtMZkYVAdzYfQAeamjV2OY4EXbGGNm bZfpJWxNvrhO+AA6Pu1XnMoKRkmIoIQDQaqbDfvwd1rNFgRid466fSHv+T89l6NfU3ew UFfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531z5AMnZmQZdqdj4sN7oWp34vvk1FBv9nHpQZb+tU9Vf806rR9s ML1BmT0LOGamcmmWo3wTCD2ovFKwOxhRsg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8nENPudzY5uFnXFtmN9BTGucaZqMGIO/Gm/zyJZR2jIhfsfeklBwYGoQr8oPa9DNeDHIy3A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f606:: with SMTP id t6mr4495346wrp.360.1612524051826; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([88.98.246.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j7sm12647143wrp.72.2021.02.05.03.20.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:20:51 -0800 (PST) From: luca.boccassi@gmail.com To: Ivan Malov Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Andy Moreton , dpdk stable Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 11:15:12 +0000 Message-Id: <20210205111920.1272063-26-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.29.2 In-Reply-To: <20210205111920.1272063-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> References: <20210205111920.1272063-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [dpdk-stable] patch 'common/sfc_efx/base: remove warnings about inline specifiers' has been queued to stable release 20.11.1 X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" Hi, FYI, your patch has been queued to stable release 20.11.1 Note it hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable yet. It will be pushed if I get no objections before 02/07/21. So please shout if anyone has objections. Also note that after the patch there's a diff of the upstream commit vs the patch applied to the branch. This will indicate if there was any rebasing needed to apply to the stable branch. If there were code changes for rebasing (ie: not only metadata diffs), please double check that the rebase was correctly done. Queued patches are on a temporary branch at: https://github.com/bluca/dpdk-stable This queued commit can be viewed at: https://github.com/bluca/dpdk-stable/commit/6b2b02c5cfd68190aa35e217a75bb0ec378a89e2 Thanks. Luca Boccassi --- >From 6b2b02c5cfd68190aa35e217a75bb0ec378a89e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ivan Malov Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:24:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] common/sfc_efx/base: remove warnings about inline specifiers [ upstream commit c87fa3156c4334ccf0e105c3bb1248dff71b7ae5 ] Windows build of the current libefx rejects these specifiers. They're unneeded anyway; the compiler should decide inlining. Fixes: 34285fd0891d ("common/sfc_efx/base: add match spec validate API") Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton --- drivers/common/sfc_efx/base/efx_mae.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/common/sfc_efx/base/efx_mae.c b/drivers/common/sfc_efx/base/efx_mae.c index ee0a3d3196..cbc1cb28c9 100644 --- a/drivers/common/sfc_efx/base/efx_mae.c +++ b/drivers/common/sfc_efx/base/efx_mae.c @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ efx_mae_match_specs_equal( ((_mask)[(_bit) / (_mask_page_nbits)] & \ (1ULL << ((_bit) & ((_mask_page_nbits) - 1)))) -static inline boolean_t +static boolean_t efx_mask_is_prefix( __in size_t mask_nbytes, __in_bcount(mask_nbytes) const uint8_t *maskp) @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ efx_mask_is_prefix( return B_TRUE; } -static inline boolean_t +static boolean_t efx_mask_is_all_ones( __in size_t mask_nbytes, __in_bcount(mask_nbytes) const uint8_t *maskp) @@ -794,7 +794,7 @@ efx_mask_is_all_ones( return (t == (uint8_t)(~0)); } -static inline boolean_t +static boolean_t efx_mask_is_all_zeros( __in size_t mask_nbytes, __in_bcount(mask_nbytes) const uint8_t *maskp) -- 2.29.2 --- Diff of the applied patch vs upstream commit (please double-check if non-empty: --- --- - 2021-02-05 11:18:30.476095869 +0000 +++ 0026-common-sfc_efx-base-remove-warnings-about-inline-spe.patch 2021-02-05 11:18:28.634687837 +0000 @@ -1 +1 @@ -From c87fa3156c4334ccf0e105c3bb1248dff71b7ae5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From 6b2b02c5cfd68190aa35e217a75bb0ec378a89e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 @@ -5,0 +6,2 @@ +[ upstream commit c87fa3156c4334ccf0e105c3bb1248dff71b7ae5 ] + @@ -10 +11,0 @@ -Cc: stable@dpdk.org