From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Declan Doherty Subject: Re: [PATCH] bond: fix LACP mempool size Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: <566EE597.3090200@intel.com> References: <1449580985-2692-1-git-send-email-aber@semihalf.com> <1630221.0CJlf5Jkii@xps13> <1485531.tGOVgyf9lb@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Andriy Berestovskyy Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CED8E90 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:53:05 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1485531.tGOVgyf9lb@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 14/12/15 14:07, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-10 22:50, Thomas Monjalon: >> Please Declan, >> Could you check these patches from Andriy >> and tell how safe it is for 2.2? > > Declan, you have just acked 2 patches from Andriy without telling > how safe they are for 2.2. > Also we hadn't notice there is no Signed-off-by lines in these patches. > > Andriy, could you confirm your Signed-off-by according to the > Developer's Certificate of Origin? > (see http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches) > Hey Thomas, sorry I didn't notice the lack of a sign-off, and git didn't complain when I applied them, which I expected it would. Both change sets look like they should be safe for inclusion in 2.2 as they are both addressing valid issues but they do not effect the expected behavior of the bonding library. I've also verified that all the bonding test unit cases are also still passing, so they look good to me. Regards Declan