[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/tep_term: fix offload on VXLAN failure

Tan, Jianfeng jianfeng.tan at intel.com
Tue Sep 13 02:50:16 CEST 2016


Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:36 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Yuanhan Liu
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/tep_term: fix offload on
> VXLAN failure
> 
> 2016-09-12 08:42, Tan, Jianfeng:
> > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com]
> > > FYI, my testrobot caught some errors when this patch is applied.
> >
> > It's because this patch set has dependency on a previous patch set, which
> seems a difficult scenario to handle. There's no standard to state the
> dependency, right?
> 
> No there is no standard to state the dependency.
> We need one. Actually, there are 3 kinds of dependencies:
> 	- a well know dependency when sending a patch
> 	- implicit dependency on the HEAD
> 	(can fail if a conflicting patch is pushed)
> 	- dependency on a specific tree (next-*)
> 
> I suggest using:
> 	Depends-on: pw <patchwork-id-of-the-patch>|<tree> <hash>
> Examples:
> 	Depends-on: pw 33000
> 	Depends-on: master 3643b0f
> 	Depends-on: next-net f33e00
> 
> It won't work well when a patch depends on a pending patch series
> because the cover letter has no patchwork identifier.
> It will be solved with the next version of patchwork (in few months).
> In the meantime, we can point to the first patch of the series.
> 
> Comments/ideas?

I think it's a great idea which can make the work of auto tools much more easier and less false positive errors. Besides, it will improve the experience of code review.

Thanks,
Jianfeng


More information about the dev mailing list