On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:25:11AM +0100, Mauricio Vásquez wrote: > On 16 November 2015 at 06:48, Flavio Leitner <f...@sysclose.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:22:39AM +0100, Mauricio Vásquez wrote: > > > Although netdev does explicit locking, it is only valid from the ovs > > > perspective, then only the ring ends used by ovs should be declared as > > > single producer / single consumer. > > > The other ends that are used by the application should be declared as > > > multiple producer / multiple consumer that is the most general case. > > > > > > Please ignore previous patch that was bad-formatted. > > > (http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-November/062079.html) > > > > We usually do the other way around. We post the new version, then > > go back to the previous one and reply saying it's fixed on a new > > version here <url>. Otherwise those lines will be recorded in the > > commit log which isn't good (add no value) and someone reviewing > > the old thread might not know about the new version. > > > > Thank you for the advise, I'll do that way next time. > > > The patch itself makes sense to me. > > fbl > > > > Should I send a new patch with the new commit title and > removing the URL in the commit message, or the person that > will apply it can change them?
Maintainers have to deal with many patches plus reviews, so we appreciate if you can post another version. Doing so will help us to ack your patch properly and to get it merged smoothly. fbl _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
