On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 1:46 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:23:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > > Hello Bruce, > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:21 PM Andre Muezerie > > <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > v2: > > > * Updated commit messages to follow standard format. > > > > > > This patch avoids warnings like the one below emitted by MSVC, and is > > > needed to get the code to compile cleanly with MSVC. > > > > > > ../drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c(139): > > > warning C4098: 'idpf_singleq_rearm': > > > 'void' function returning a value > > > > > > Andre Muezerie (2): > > > drivers/common: fix void function returning a value > > > drivers/net: fix void function returning a value > > > > > > drivers/common/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx512.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/net/ice/ice_rxtx_vec_avx2.c | 2 +- > > > 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > I see the series is delegated to the main repo (Thomas). > > > > This touches only Intel drivers and the code deduplication effort you > > started may conflict (though trivially) with such changes depending on > > when it lands. > > > > Would you mind merging this fixes from Andre through the > > next-net-intel tree, right now? > > If so, please mark it as delegated to you in patchwork. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Hi David, > > the code deduplication effort patchsets are similarly delegated to the main > repo. I was assuming this was deliberate, but perhaps it isn't? I'm ok to
I suspect it was delegated to main because of the change on devtools/check-git-log.sh. But it is really only about net driver changes, so it should go either through your or Stephen tree. (we have enough patches waiting in main ;-)) > take these patches in next-net-intel, but just would like to confirm that > neither you, Thomas or Stephen (as net maintainer) want to review the dedup > work ahead of that initial merge? I don't have an objection on this series (on the contrary, I am quite happy to see such effort). I'll have a deeper look at it, this afternoon. -- David Marchand
