Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] lib/librte_ether: modify the structures for fdir new modes

From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] lib/librte_ether: modify the structures for fdir new modes
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:08:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC0909020A2122@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2331686.veA1YA3sRZ@xps13>

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 3:30 PM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/7] lib/librte_ether: modify the structures
> for fdir new modes
> 
> 2015-10-23 01:22, Lu, Wenzhuo:
> > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > >  union rte_eth_fdir_flow {
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_l2_flow     l2_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_udpv4_flow  udp4_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_tcpv4_flow  tcp4_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_sctpv4_flow sctp4_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_ipv4_flow   ip4_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_udpv6_flow  udp6_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_tcpv6_flow  tcp6_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_sctpv6_flow sctp6_flow;
> > > > -	struct rte_eth_ipv6_flow   ipv6_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_l2_flow         l2_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_udpv4_flow      udp4_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_tcpv4_flow      tcp4_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_sctpv4_flow     sctp4_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_ipv4_flow       ip4_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_udpv6_flow      udp6_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_tcpv6_flow      tcp6_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_sctpv6_flow     sctp6_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_ipv6_flow       ipv6_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_mac_vlan_flow   mac_vlan_flow;
> > > > +	struct rte_eth_tunnel_flow     tunnel_flow;
> > >
> > > Can you please minimize the whitespace changes here. It looks in the
> > > diff like you are replacing the entire set of entries, but on closer
> > > inspection it looks like you are just adding in two extra lines.
> > Using vi or other editing tools, we can see all this fields are
> > aligned. I think it's worth to keep it.
> 
> Bruce means you should avoid changing lines only for alignment.
> It's not a big deal if mac_vlan_flow is not perfectly aligned.
> When cosmetic rework is really needed, it's better to do it in a separate
> patch.
OK. I'll change it.