[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/af_packet: fix build failure because of unused parameter

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 9/25/2017 10:40 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:42:56AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/25/2017 7:50 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> Failure happens on build using:
>>> gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4)
>>
>> Yes, that case is missed. What do you think about following one:
>>
>>   @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ rte_pmd_init_internals(struct rte_vdev_device *dev,
>>                           unsigned int blockcnt,
>>                           unsigned int framesize,
>>                           unsigned int framecnt,
>>   -                      unsigned int qdisc_bypass,
>>   +                      unsigned int qdisc_bypass __rte_unused,
>>                           struct pmd_internals **internals,
>>                           struct rte_eth_dev **eth_dev,
>>                           struct rte_kvargs *kvlist)
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0d16c17ae7a4 ("net/af_packet: make qdisc bypass configurable")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>> ---
>>> May be the right solution in fact remove PACKET_QDISC_BYPASS conditional
>>> completely. If below solution is accepted, feel free to squash it into
>>> the original patch.
>>
>> It is a little to late for this, I already sent a pull-request with this
>> patch. So fix will need to be a separate patch.
>>
> Pull request hasn't actually been pulled yet, so you should be able to
> supercede it by a later one, right?

Technically yes, and easy to do, but it will be confusing. I was taking
pull-request as code freeze in sub-tree.

If there are multiple pull-request for a tree, how can one be sure which
ones has been pulled and what to expect in main repo, and verify what
has been merged?

As above said, if Thomas thinks this is OK, I can send another pull request?