From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: Question about patchset order. Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 00:07:01 +0000 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 Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon 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) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1565638.IGO4Cj2mt5@xps13> 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 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