From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] net/failsafe: replace local device with shared data Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 18:41:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3989540.z5LmgLb1Al@xps> References: <1551779507-10857-1-git-send-email-rasland@mellanox.com> <20190305164326.pu4y4srtnnt7zc7k@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <20190305174002.b52wokrajmnbbqsh@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Raslan Darawsheh , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75704559A for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:41:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20190305174002.b52wokrajmnbbqsh@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/03/2019 18:40, Ga=EBtan Rivet: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Ga=EBtan Rivet wrote: > > I have had a little trouble reading the patches. I think the 3 first > > should be squashed into a single one, it would be more coherent. > >=20 > > I think I have seen a few points where doing so would have prevented > > some unnecessary changes for example, simplifying the series. (thinking > > about at least two PORT_ID() and a few ETH() removal that might have > > been prevented, I will try to point them all to you.) > >=20 [...] > >=20 > > Beside the squashing, this patch seems ok. >=20 > Okay after reading a little more closely, it does not seem interesting > to squash finaly, and it will be simpler for you to continue with your > current series, so forget about that. Yes, and it's easier to track changes when split as it is.