On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-02-23 16:17, Kobylinski, MichalX: > > Hi Thomas, > > I sent in January a patch-set that extends to 24 bits a next_hop field in > > lpm library: > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10249/ > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10250/ > > > > also Jerin Jakob sent his patch-set with ARM architecture support in lpm > > library. > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10478/ > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10479/ > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10480/ > > > > Could you write please, in which order do you prefer to apply these two > > patch-sets? > > This information will be helpful to predict the risk and estimate > > additional work. > > Thanks for bringing up the LPM patches. > I would prefer to follow the advice of Bruce who has well followed > these interactions.
Hi all, sorry, but I haven't been following the discussion as closely of late as previously, hence the slow reply. For what goes first, generally the more complex/bigger patchset should be merged first, so I think the expansion of the next_hop field should therefore go in first. Jerin's patches will then need to be rebased on it. Regards, /Bruce
