From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] hash: add
	rte_hash_set_cmp_func()	function.
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 00:43:43 +0100
Message-ID: <2203157.9kzBf8srYb@xps13>
References: <1447895712-12159-1-git-send-email-yuwb_bjy@ctbri.com.cn>
 <1449198703-8585-1-git-send-email-yuwb_bjy@ctbri.com.cn>
 <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8973C86609B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Yu Nemo Wenbin <yuwb_bjy@ctbri.com.cn>
To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2489993A6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  7 Dec 2015 00:44:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so120821913wmu.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 15:44:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8973C86609B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2015-12-04 08:54, De Lara Guarch, Pablo:
> Hi Nemo,
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yu Nemo Wenbin
> > Give user a chance to costomize the hash key compare function.
> > The default rte_hash_cmp_eq function is set in the rte_hash_create
> > function, but these builtin ones may not good enough, so the user
> > may call this to override the default one.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Nemo Wenbin <yuwb_bjy@ctbri.com.cn>
> 
> What I meant with all the changes in one go is to include them in a single patch, not three,
> where your starting point is the current code in mainline.
> Please, check that the commit message is fixed as we discussed,
> and that the new function is in DPDK_2.2, and not DPDK_2.1

I think I've understood what Nemo wants to do.
I've fixed the indent, fixed the doxygen comment and dropped the third patch.
At the end, applied with your previous ack.