From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v7 0/9] enable lpm, acl and other missing libraries in ppc64le Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:01:53 +0800 Message-ID: <20160927070153.GJ25823@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D8912647A66EBC@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2096077.zsYv3Q4577@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , dev@dpdk.org, Chao Zhu , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Pradeep , stable@dpdk.org To: gowrishankar muthukrishnan Return-path: 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 Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:16:32PM +0530, gowrishankar muthukrishnan wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2016 09:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>v7 changes: > >>>- removed enforcing cache alignment for table hash structs and > >>> instead check only for multiples of 64 bytes. > >>> > >>Acked-by: Cristian Dumitrescu > >Applied, thanks > > > >We now have some AltiVec code in DPDK! > > > > > Thank you Thomas, could this also go into stable tree ? (Added > stable@dpdk.org in CC). This patchset is more like enabling DPDK on a new platform, so, it's a new feature to me, which is not a good candidate for a stable release: the basic rule of it is only bug fixing patches are allowed. The reason I picked "examples/ip_pipeline: fix lcore mapping for ppc64" to stable branch is it looks like a bug fixing patch to me, while others are not. OTOH, it also looks like a PPC enabling patch to me; from this point of view, I may need drop it. IBM guys, does it make sense to pick that one only to stable branch? Or, should I drop it? Thanks. --yliu