> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 12:44 AM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]>; Feifei Wang <[email protected]>;
> Xing, Beilei <[email protected]>; David Christensen
> <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon
> <[email protected]>; David Marchand <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] net/i40e: remove redundant number of packets check
> 
> On 3/3/2022 2:28 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Feifei Wang <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:54 AM
> >> To: Xing, Beilei <[email protected]>; David Christensen
> >> <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce
> >> <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> >> <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Feifei Wang <[email protected]>;
> >> Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: [PATCH v1] net/i40e: remove redundant number of packets
> >> check
> >>
> >> For i40e_xmit_pkts_vec_xx function, it checks nb_pkts to ensure
> >> nb_pkts does not cross rs_thresh.
> >>
> >> However, in i40e_xmit_fixed_burst_vec_xx function, this check will be
> >> performed again. To improve code, delete this redundant check.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <[email protected]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>
> >
> > Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel.
> >
> 
> Hi Qi,
> 
> This patch is not acked by the i40e maintainers.
> 
> And this is changing the datapath for the -rc3, two weeks before the release. 
> Is
> it tested enough?
> 
> What is the gain with this patch, I don't see any numbers in the commit log.
> If the gain is small, can we postpone this patch to next release instead of 
> getting
> it for -rc3?

The patch applied the same thing as below which I have reviewed.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/[email protected]/

I didn't see the risk of having it, and I will add a "reviewed-by" to avoid 
confusion, but if you think it's risky, we can still defer it to next-net.

Thanks
Qi

Reply via email to