On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > > > > 2016-12-23 09:36, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Michal Miroslaw [mailto:mirq-li...@rere.qmqm.pl] > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 06:48:52PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > I suppose that changes have to be inside: > > > > > [PATCH v2] acl: allow zero verdict. > > > > > > > > The 'allow zero verdict' patch depends on this one if we are to not have > > > > a breaking tests inbetween. > > > > > > Exactly, that's why I think they either has to be in one series of > > > patches, > > > with this one coming first and ' PATCH v2] acl: allow zero verdict' as > > > the second one, > > > or just merge them into one. > > No progress here. > > Konstantin, do you ack this patch? > Yes, I do. > I just thought that the author would resubmit it as part of > ' PATCH v2] acl: allow zero verdict' > to comply with DPDK patch submission rules. > Konstantin > > I could apply it as a standalone patch.
Sorry for the delay. I'll do just that in a moment. Best Regards, Michał Mirosław
