From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add Tx offload outer UDP
	checksum definition
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 10:36:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4277755.JZm9Gr5mod@xps>
References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20181003075823.GB2003@jerin>
 <0079b011-100f-1699-356f-80648abcb36f@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
 Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org, shahafs@mellanox.com
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980904CA7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Oct 2018 10:36:54 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <0079b011-100f-1699-356f-80648abcb36f@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

03/10/2018 10:02, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/3/2018 8:58 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> >> The question about mbuf and ethdev changes separation is applicable here as
> >> well. I have no strong opinion, but I think it would be good to follow.
> > 
> > I don't have strong opinion on this. If there are no other objection, I
> > will split the patch further as mbuf and ethdev as you pointed out.
> 
> Since they are logically related, it make sense to have them together to me.

+1 for keeping ethdev/mbuf together.
No problem applying such mbuf change in dpdk-next-net.