On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:23:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > Hello Bruce, > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:21 PM Andre Muezerie > <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > v2: > > * Updated commit messages to follow standard format. > > > > This patch avoids warnings like the one below emitted by MSVC, and is > > needed to get the code to compile cleanly with MSVC. > > > > ../drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c(139): > > warning C4098: 'idpf_singleq_rearm': > > 'void' function returning a value > > > > Andre Muezerie (2): > > drivers/common: fix void function returning a value > > drivers/net: fix void function returning a value > > > > drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx512.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/ice/ice_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > I see the series is delegated to the main repo (Thomas). > > This touches only Intel drivers and the code deduplication effort you > started may conflict (though trivially) with such changes depending on > when it lands. > > Would you mind merging this fixes from Andre through the > next-net-intel tree, right now? > If so, please mark it as delegated to you in patchwork. > > > Thanks! > Hi David,
the code deduplication effort patchsets are similarly delegated to the main repo. I was assuming this was deliberate, but perhaps it isn't? I'm ok to take these patches in next-net-intel, but just would like to confirm that neither you, Thomas or Stephen (as net maintainer) want to review the dedup work ahead of that initial merge? /Bruce
