From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
 checksum definition
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:36:14 +0300
Message-ID: <05d21d69-9829-7b70-93ad-fbbe3c2bc73a@solarflare.com>
References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <d3a4c3e0-2c04-a999-8b6d-6cdc9f24bee6@solarflare.com>
 <20181003075712.GA2003@jerin> <4436965.z0pH4WHX7F@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, John McNamara
 <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 <dev@dpdk.org>, <shahafs@mellanox.com>, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
 <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Jerin Jacob
 <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com
 [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0868D5A6A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Oct 2018 10:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <4436965.z0pH4WHX7F@xps>
Content-Language: en-GB
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 10/3/18 11:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 03/10/2018 09:57, Jerin Jacob:
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>>> 1. I'm not sure that it is OK that mbuf and ethdev changes go in one patch.
>>>     It seems typically mbuf changes go separately and mbuf changes should
>>>     be applied to main dpdk repo.
>> I don't have strong opinion on this. If there are no other objection, I
>> will split the patch further as mbuf and ethdev as you pointed out.
> Those flags are handled in mbuf and ethdev.
> As it is closely related, I think it is better to get the changes
> in one patch, as you did.

OK, thanks for clarification.