> From: Mike Stolarchuk [mailto:mike.stolarc...@bigswitch.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 4:00 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key > > Pablo, > > Also, what about the other patch? > the use of a static variable in a recursive call? obviously incorrect for a > threaded environment ... has that been accepted?
Hi Mike, Yes, that patch was accepted. Thanks, Pablo > > regards, > mts. > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:10 AM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:59 PM > > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, > > Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; mstolarchuk <mike.stolarc...@bigswitch.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] Use an accessor for rte_hash_key > > > > 18/08/2017 22:09, mstolarchuk: > > > Improves consistency, allows identifcation of use-sites > > > > > > Signed-off-by: mstolarchuk <mike.stolarc...@bigswitch.com> > > > > Any comment on this patch and others from the same author? > Hi, > > Two of the patches submitted are actually the same, although they have a > different enumeration. > The patches look like they were part of two different patchsets, so it doesn't > look right. > Also, patch 6/6 is not applicable anymore, as a similar fix was sent > previously. > > Mike, could you send another patchset, that is rebased on top of the latest > code? > > Thanks, > Pablo
