| Message ID | 20190718130306.66970-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | dpcls func ptrs & optimizations | expand |
On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: > Hey Folks, > > Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been > presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. > I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had > enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. > > Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that > the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now > using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper > de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. > > Regards, -Harry Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape to me. Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread issues spotted in the earlier series. I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered for the 2.12 release. We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the 2.13 release next year. As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before release. Are there any objections to this? Thanks Ian
On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: > On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >> Hey Folks, >> >> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. >> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had >> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >> >> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >> >> Regards, -Harry > > Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape to me. > > Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for > scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread > issues spotted in the earlier series. > > I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered for > the 2.12 release. > > We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, Arm, > Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. > > It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the > 2.13 release next year. > > As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays feature > freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before release. > > Are there any objections to this? > > Thanks > Ian Hi All,, I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions are to merge this today. Basic CI tests are available as below https://travis-ci.org/istokes/ovs/builds/560475185 https://ci.appveyor.com/project/istokes/ovs-q1bbe/builds/26074694 https://readthedocs.org/projects/ovs-istokes/builds/9393923/ @Ilya, as you've done a lot of work reviewing/testing/contributing, are you happy for me to add your your ACK? Regards Ian
On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: > On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: >> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >>> Hey Folks, >>> >>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. >>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had >>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >>> >>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >>> >>> Regards, -Harry >> >> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape to me. >> >> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread issues spotted in the earlier series. >> >> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered for the 2.12 release. >> >> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. >> >> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the 2.13 release next year. >> >> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before release. >> >> Are there any objections to this? >> >> Thanks >> Ian > > Hi All,, > > I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions are to merge this today. Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your previous mail. Are you at office 24/7? I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of hours. Is it OK for you? > > Basic CI tests are available as below > > https://travis-ci.org/istokes/ovs/builds/560475185 > https://ci.appveyor.com/project/istokes/ovs-q1bbe/builds/26074694 > https://readthedocs.org/projects/ovs-istokes/builds/9393923/ > > @Ilya, as you've done a lot of work reviewing/testing/contributing, are you happy for me to add your your ACK? Sure. > > Regards > Ian
On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: >> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: >>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >>>> Hey Folks, >>>> >>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. >>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had >>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >>>> >>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >>>> >>>> Regards, -Harry >>> >>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape to me. >>> >>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread issues spotted in the earlier series. >>> >>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered for the 2.12 release. >>> >>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. >>> >>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the 2.13 release next year. >>> >>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before release. >>> >>> Are there any objections to this? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Ian >> >> Hi All,, >> >> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions are to merge this today. > > Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your previous mail. > Are you at office 24/7? Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was a delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend to lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the last mail :) > I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of hours. > Is it OK for you? > Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If you come across anything untowards today let us know :). Regards Ian >> >> Basic CI tests are available as below >> >> https://travis-ci.org/istokes/ovs/builds/560475185 >> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/istokes/ovs-q1bbe/builds/26074694 >> https://readthedocs.org/projects/ovs-istokes/builds/9393923/ >> >> @Ilya, as you've done a lot of work reviewing/testing/contributing, are you happy for me to add your your ACK? > > Sure. > >> >> Regards >> Ian
On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote: > On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: >>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >>>>> Hey Folks, >>>>> >>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. >>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had >>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, -Harry >>>> >>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape to me. >>>> >>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread issues spotted in the earlier series. >>>> >>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered for the 2.12 release. >>>> >>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. >>>> >>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the 2.13 release next year. >>>> >>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before release. >>>> >>>> Are there any objections to this? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Ian >>> >>> Hi All,, >>> >>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions are to merge this today. >> >> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your previous mail. >> Are you at office 24/7? > > Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was a delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend to lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the last mail :) > >> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of hours. >> Is it OK for you? >> > > Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If you come across anything untowards today let us know :). I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance difference with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > Regards > Ian >>> >>> Basic CI tests are available as below >>> >>> https://travis-ci.org/istokes/ovs/builds/560475185 >>> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/istokes/ovs-q1bbe/builds/26074694 >>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/ovs-istokes/builds/9393923/ >>> >>> @Ilya, as you've done a lot of work reviewing/testing/contributing, are you happy for me to add your your ACK? >> >> Sure. >> >>> >>> Regards >>> Ian
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 11:57 AM > To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry > <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations > > On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote: > > On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: > >>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: > >>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: > >>>>> Hey Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been > >>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since > then. > >>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had > >>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that > >>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now > >>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper > >>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, -Harry > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape > to me. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for > scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread > issues spotted in the earlier series. > >>>> > >>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered > for the 2.12 release. > >>>> > >>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, > Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. > >>>> > >>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the > 2.13 release next year. > >>>> > >>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays > feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before > release. > >>>> > >>>> Are there any objections to this? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Ian > >>> > >>> Hi All,, > >>> > >>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions > are to merge this today. > >> > >> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your previous > mail. > >> Are you at office 24/7? > > > > Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was a > delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend to > lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the last > mail :) > > > >> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of > hours. > >> Is it OK for you? > >> > > > > Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If you > come across anything untowards today let us know :). > > I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance difference > with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me. Thanks Ilya, can I add your ack for the series with the amendment on patch 5 you flagged? Regards Ian
On 19.07.2019 14:00, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 11:57 AM >> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry >> <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; dev@openvswitch.org >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations >> >> On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote: >>> On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >>>>>>> Hey Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >>>>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since >> then. >>>>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had >>>>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >>>>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >>>>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >>>>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, -Harry >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good shape >> to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation for >> scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread >> issues spotted in the earlier series. >>>>>> >>>>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered >> for the 2.12 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, >> Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. >>>>>> >>>>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in the >> 2.13 release next year. >>>>>> >>>>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays >> feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period before >> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there any objections to this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> Hi All,, >>>>> >>>>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My intentions >> are to merge this today. >>>> >>>> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your previous >> mail. >>>> Are you at office 24/7? >>> >>> Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was a >> delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend to >> lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the last >> mail :) >>> >>>> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of >> hours. >>>> Is it OK for you? >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If you >> come across anything untowards today let us know :). >> >> I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance difference >> with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me. > > Thanks Ilya, can I add your ack for the series with the amendment on patch 5 you flagged? OK. Sure. > > Regards > Ian >
> >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com] > >> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 11:57 AM > >> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry > >> <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; dev@openvswitch.org > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations > >> > >> On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote: > >>> On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >>>> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: > >>>>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: > >>>>>>> Hey Folks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been > >>>>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since > >> then. > >>>>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has > had > >>>>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that > >>>>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now > >>>>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper > >>>>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, -Harry > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good > shape > >> to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation > for > >> scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread > >> issues spotted in the earlier series. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered > >> for the 2.12 release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, > >> Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in > the > >> 2.13 release next year. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays > >> feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period > before > >> release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are there any objections to this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> Ian > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi All,, > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My > intentions > >> are to merge this today. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your > previous > >> mail. > >>>> Are you at office 24/7? > >>> > >>> Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was > a > >> delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend > to > >> lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the > last > >> mail :) > >>> > >>>> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of > >> hours. > >>>> Is it OK for you? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If > you > >> come across anything untowards today let us know :). > >> > >> I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance > difference > >> with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me. > > > > Thanks Ilya, can I add your ack for the series with the amendment on > patch 5 you flagged? > > OK. Sure. Cool, thank you very much for the work on this, I'm not being finicky but for such a change I think it's worth having two maintainers on board for the commits. Thanks Ian
On 7/19/2019 12:14 PM, Stokes, Ian wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 11:57 AM >>>> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry >>>> <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; dev@openvswitch.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations >>>> >>>> On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>>> On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>>> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hey Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been >>>>>>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since >>>> then. >>>>>>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has >> had >>>>>>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that >>>>>>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now >>>>>>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper >>>>>>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, -Harry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good >> shape >>>> to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation >> for >>>> scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread >>>> issues spotted in the earlier series. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered >>>> for the 2.12 release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat, >>>> Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in >> the >>>> 2.13 release next year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays >>>> feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period >> before >>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are there any objections to this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All,, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My >> intentions >>>> are to merge this today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your >> previous >>>> mail. >>>>>> Are you at office 24/7? >>>>> >>>>> Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was >> a >>>> delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so tend >> to >>>> lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the >> last >>>> mail :) >>>>> >>>>>> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of >>>> hours. >>>>>> Is it OK for you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If >> you >>>> come across anything untowards today let us know :). >>>> >>>> I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance >> difference >>>> with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me. >>> >>> Thanks Ilya, can I add your ack for the series with the amendment on >> patch 5 you flagged? >> >> OK. Sure. > > Cool, thank you very much for the work on this, I'm not being finicky but for such a change I think it's worth having two maintainers on board for the commits. > > Thanks > Ian Thanks all for the work on this. Pushed to master. Regards Ian > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev >