On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:22 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]> wrote: > BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1.
Yes
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf:... Ananyev, Konstantin
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Ananyev, Konstantin
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Olivier Matz
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Ananyev, Konstantin
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Ananyev, Konstantin
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Morten Brørup
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Olivier Matz
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Bruce Richardson
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Olivier Matz
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Ananyev, Konstantin
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Olivier Matz
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Thomas Monjalon
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Olivier MATZ
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Bruce Richardson
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] m... Bruce Richardson
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganizat... Nélio Laranjeiro
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganizat... Andrew Rybchenko
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganizat... Jerin Jacob
