> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:58 AM > To: Iremonger, Bernard; linville at tuxdriver.com > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] deadline notice > > 2015-06-11 09:30, Iremonger, Bernard: > > The following patch was submitted on 10th March 2015, but does not seem > to be on DPDK patchwork. > > > > [dpdk-dev] [RFC] af_packet: support port hotplug > > Good catch. It was classified as RFC: > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/3963/ > > A v2 should be sent. > > Note: [RFC] should be preferred for incomplete patches or trials.
Hi Thomas, Should RFC PATCH be retained for v2 and subsequent patches or should RFC be dropped? Regards, Bernard.
