From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mk: optimize directory dependencies
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:25:45 +0100
Message-ID: <26118650.GOHWFKqnEF@xps13>
References: <20170123181813.00567e47@platinum>
 <20170124155000.2341e579@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
 <CA4F7BBD-C500-42BA-A1C6-B591E4432093@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
 Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Yigit,
 Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E872B9D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  1 Mar 2017 12:25:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id v186so107535937wmd.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 03:25:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA4F7BBD-C500-42BA-A1C6-B591E4432093@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2017-01-24 14:55, Wiles, Keith:
> > On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> =
wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:26:41 +0000, "Richardson, Bruce"
> > <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> Ok. Point taken for the lower-core count parts.
> >>=20
> >> Thomas - can at least one of these patches be merged into 17.02,
> >> since it will definitely help us developers? [If Olivier's is too =
big
> >> a change at this point in the cycle, can Ferruh's be taken as an
> >> intermediate fix for this release before merging Olivier's in 17.0=
5?]
> >=20
> > It looks to be a good option. Ferruh's patch is less risky for 17.0=
2.
>=20
> +1 for Ferruh=E2=80=99s version now and Olivier=E2=80=99s later as it=
 does not require -j.

The Ferruh's version has been merged in 17.02.
Are we still OK to take Olivier's version in 17.05?

Olivier, are you going to update/rebase it?