From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/11] virtio: pci: add dummy func definition for in/outb for non-x86 arch Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:38:46 +0800 Message-ID: <20160129073846.GT4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1453203972-24855-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <1453203972-24855-11-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20160129070112.GO4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Santosh Shukla Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B12C574 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:38:01 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:01:02PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > > Another generic comment about this patchset is that it VERY okay to > > include several components change in one set, but putting them in > > order helps review a lot. > > > > Say, this patch set has dependence on VFIO stuff, therefore, it'd be > > much better __IF__ you can put all VFIO related patches first, and > > then virtio related patches follows, but not in an interleaved way > > you did. If, for somereason, you can't do that, you should at least > > try to minimise the chance of interleave. > > > > I agree that, but this patch series dependent on other patches > including virtio 1.0 and then vfio-noiommu, its was difficult for me > to keep topic-wise sanity in patch series. That would not be an issue to me: just apply the dependence patches first, and build your patches on top of that. You just need mention the dependence info in your cover-letter. --yliu > > V6 will take care patch ordering. Thanks Thanks! --yliu