No need to delay review, it can be done on current master, as the rebase is trivial and whoever pushes the patches can do it.
Jarno > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Jan Scheurich <jan.scheur...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > From your second mail I figure I should base on your revert patch and post a > v5 instead where cpvector is replaced by the old pvector again. > > What is the best procedure for this? I guess I should wait until the revert > patch is merged. But that might delay the review and reduce chances of making > it for 2.6. Please advise. > > Thanks, Jan > > > From: Jarno Rajahalme [mailto:ja...@ovn.org] > Sent: Tuesday, 09 August, 2016 22:04 > To: Jan Scheurich > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3] dpif-netdev: dpcls per in_port with sorted > subtables > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Jan Scheurich <jan.scheur...@web.de > <mailto:jan.scheur...@web.de>> wrote: > > - Adapted to renamed cpvector API > Reverted dplcs to using cpvector due to threading issue during flow removal > > Would you be kind and make this a separate patch, with a more detailed commit > message. > > Thanks, > > Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
