From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
	checksum definition
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 10:35:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4436965.z0pH4WHX7F@xps>
References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <d3a4c3e0-2c04-a999-8b6d-6cdc9f24bee6@solarflare.com>
 <20181003075712.GA2003@jerin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 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: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503864CA6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Oct 2018 10:35:08 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20181003075712.GA2003@jerin>
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>

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.