Hi Amr, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mokhtar, Amr > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:53 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Chalupnik, KamilX > <kamilx.chalup...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Chalupnik, KamilX <kamilx.chalup...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] baseband/turbo_sw: update Turbo Software > driver > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > > Sent: Tuesday 24 April 2018 18:56 > > To: Chalupnik, KamilX <kamilx.chalup...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Mokhtar, Amr <amr.mokh...@intel.com>; Chalupnik, KamilX > > <kamilx.chalup...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] baseband/turbo_sw: update Turbo > > Software driver > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of KamilX > > > Chalupnik > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:44 PM > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Mokhtar, Amr <amr.mokh...@intel.com>; Chalupnik, KamilX > > > <kamilx.chalup...@intel.com> > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] baseband/turbo_sw: update Turbo > > Software > > > driver > > > > > > Update Turbo Software driver for Wireless Baseband Device: > > > - support for optional CRC overlap in decode processing implemented > > > - function scaling input LLR values to specific range [-16, 16] > > > added > > > - sizes of the internal buffers used by decoding were increased due to > > > problem with memory for large test vectors > > > - new test vectors to check device capabilities added > > > > > > > Split this patch into multiple patches, each one doing a single item > > of your above list. > > Again, make sure that it can be compiled and that is functional along > > the patches. > > > > Too much splits is a bit an overkill. > All the above changes are enhancements of Turbo coding operations. > They all fall under one common topic and appears like they are good to stay > combined in one patch. > The new test vectors are related to the added enhancements.
I understand that they fall under the same top, that's why you should send them in the same patchset. In DPDK, we aim at shorter patches (when possible), with are easier to review. We tend to avoid patches making multiple changes, when they can be breakable (generally, when you have a list of changes in your commit message, that means they should go into separate patches). Thanks, Pablo
