[dpdk-dev,1/6] librte_log: add function to retrieve log_level

  Signed-off-by: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
---
 lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
  

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:47:33AM +0000, Matthew Hall wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h
> index ede0dca..9dad24e 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h
> @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ void rte_set_log_level(uint32_t level);
>  
>  /**
>   * Get the global log level.
> + *
>   */
>  uint32_t rte_get_log_level(void);
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
I don't think this patch is necessary, as all it adds is a single extra line to
a comment.

/Bruce
  

2015-11-13 11:40, Bruce Richardson:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:47:33AM +0000, Matthew Hall wrote:
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h
> > @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ void rte_set_log_level(uint32_t level);
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * Get the global log level.
> > + *
> >   */
> >  uint32_t rte_get_log_level(void);
> >  
> I don't think this patch is necessary, as all it adds is a single extra line to
> a comment.

I'm sad for you Bruce: you only see an empty line where you could catch
the beauty of the star ;)

Matthew, obviously you failed your send.
As a general comment, please group patches by logic meaning and
check them before sending ;)
  

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:40:09AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> I don't think this patch is necessary, as all it adds is a single extra line to
> a comment.
> 
> /Bruce

This one was previously merged. So indeed we can toss it.

This is what happens when you are restricted to 1 AM coding.

Matthew.
  

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> I'm sad for you Bruce: you only see an empty line where you could catch
> the beauty of the star ;)

+1

> Matthew, obviously you failed your send.

You might find a more polite way than calling contributions failures. ;)

> As a general comment, please group patches by logic meaning and
> check them before sending ;)

I did. But I'm a community guy and this is not full-time employment, and I am 
admittedly quite bad at git email workflow and don't like it much as discussed 
in previous threads.

So I did the best I could do but screwed up something minor at approx 1 or 2 
AM. It happens. I don't send you guys crazy emails when there is a build 
failure upstream either you know. (:

Matthew.