On 10/27/2017 4:31 PM, pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com (De Lara Guarch, Pablo) wrote: >> From: Mike Stolarchuk [mailto:mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 4:00 PM >> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> >> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Richardson, Bruce >> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key >> >> Pablo, >> >> Also, what about the other patch? >> the use of a static variable in a recursive call? obviously incorrect for a >> threaded environment ... has that been accepted? > > Hi Mike, > > Yes, that patch was accepted.
Hi Pablo, Mike, The patch is remaining from 2017 and sitting on the patchwork without any comment. I am marking the patchset as rejected, if they are still relevant please send a new version on top of latest repo. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. For reference patches: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27668/ https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27669/ https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27670/ https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/27671/ > > Thanks, > Pablo > >> >> regards, >> mts. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:10 AM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo >> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:59 PM >>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, >>> Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> >>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; mstolarchuk <mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key >>> >>> 18/08/2017 22:09, mstolarchuk: >>>> Improves consistency, allows identifcation of use-sites >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: mstolarchuk <mike.stolarchuk at bigswitch.com> >>> >>> Any comment on this patch and others from the same author? >> Hi, >> >> Two of the patches submitted are actually the same, although they have a >> different enumeration. >> The patches look like they were part of two different patchsets, so it >> doesn't >> look right. >> Also, patch 6/6 is not applicable anymore, as a similar fix was sent >> previously. >> >> Mike, could you send another patchset, that is rebased on top of the latest >> code? >> >> Thanks, >> Pablo > >
