> -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:17 AM > To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com> > Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 15/16] fm10k: use default mailbox message > handler for pf > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:31:05AM +0000, Wang, Xiao W wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 5:32 AM > > > To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com> > > > Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 15/16] fm10k: use default mailbox > > > message handler for pf > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:36:00PM +0800, Wang Xiao W wrote: > > > > The new share code makes fm10k_msg_update_pvid_pf function static, > > > > so we can not refer to it now in fm10k_ethdev.c. The registered pf > > > > handler is almost the same as the default pf handler, removing it > > > > has no > > > impact on mailbox. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com> > > > > > > What patch makes the function static, as we need to ensure that the > > > build is not broken by having this patch in the wrong place in the > > > patchset? > > > > > > Also, it seems strange having this patch in the middle of a series > > > of base code updates - perhaps it should go first, so that all base > > > code update patches can go one after the other. > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > It's the first patch in the patch set that makes the function static. > > So does this patch not need to go before patch 1, if we can't refer to the > function once patch one is applied? > > /Bruce
OK, got it, I will revise my patch, thanks a lot for your comment. Best Regards, Wang, Xiao
