From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Question about patchset order. Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1565638.IGO4Cj2mt5@xps13> References: <987EE72691933347B9F0B5C19E71B5BB1F02E312@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Kobylinski, MichalX" , bruce.richardson@intel.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7FA2A6C for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:36:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id a4so219888277wme.1 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:36:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <987EE72691933347B9F0B5C19E71B5BB1F02E312@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> 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" 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.