From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] acl: remove invalid test Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:24:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1502594.BWgYCgn4M3@xps13> References: <20161223014752.wicbgkvlotllsfc6@rere.qmqm.pl> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0F876A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Michal Miroslaw Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com (mail-lf0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D641094 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:24:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf0-f54.google.com with SMTP id k86so110484508lfi.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 07:24:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0F876A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-12-23 09:36, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Michal Miroslaw [mailto:mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl] > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 06:48:52PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > I suppose that changes have to be inside: > > > [PATCH v2] acl: allow zero verdict. > > > > The 'allow zero verdict' patch depends on this one if we are to not have > > a breaking tests inbetween. > > Exactly, that's why I think they either has to be in one series of patches, > with this one coming first and ' PATCH v2] acl: allow zero verdict' as the second one, > or just merge them into one. No progress here. Konstantin, do you ack this patch? I could apply it as a standalone patch.