[ovs-dev] [PATCH v6 1/7] dpif-netdev: Refactor PMD thread structure for further extension.

[Eelco Chaudron]

On 07/12/17 14:48, Jan Scheurich wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets at samsung.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 07 December, 2017 14:28
>>>> This is preparation for 'struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread' modification
>>>> in upcoming commits. Needed to avoid reordering and regrouping while
>>>> replacing old and adding new members.
>>>>
>>> Should this be part of the TX batching set? Anyway, I'm ok if it's not stalling the approval :)
>> Unfortunately yes, because members reordered and regrouped just to include
>> new members: pmd->ctx and pmd->n_output_batches. This could not be a standalone
>> change because adding of different members will require different regrouping/
>> reordering. I moved this change to a separate patch to not do this twice while
>> adding each member in patches 2/7 and 6/7.
>>
>> Anyway, as I mentioned in cover letter, I still prefer reverting of the padding
>> at all by this patch:
>> 	https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-November/341153.html
>>
> I think we should not spent time designing and reviewing these kind of patches that are made necessary by the introduction of commit  a807c15796ddc43ba1ffb2a6b0bd2ad4e2b73941.
>
> As far as I can see there was never a single review on the original patch:
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-October/339402.html
> I wonder how it got merged into master in the first place.
>
> I strongly support Ilya's revert patch for that commit:
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-November/341153.html
>
> Let's do that quickly to remove some of the obstacles to merging important patches in time for OVS 2.9.
>
> BR, Jan

Looking at the above, and going over the patches, I also agree undoing 
the commit is the right thing to do.