[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] add Intel DCF PMD support

[Wang, Haiyue]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 03:34
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>; Ye, Xiaolong
> <xiaolong.ye at intel.com>
> Cc: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>; dev <dev at dpdk.org>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Yang,
> Qiming <qiming.yang at intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing at intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>;
> Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>; ci at dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] add Intel DCF PMD support
> 
> On 09/03/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 09/03/2020 17:20, Ye Xiaolong:
> >> Hi, David
> >>
> >> On 03/09, David Marchand wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang at intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> A DCF (Device Config Function) based approach is proposed where a device
> >>>> bound to the device's VF0 can act as a sole controlling entity to exercise
> >>>> advance functionality (such as switch, ACL) for rest of the VFs.
> >>>>
> >>>> The DCF works as a standalone PMD to support this function, which shares the
> >>>> ice PMD flow control core function and the iavf virtchnl mailbox core module.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patchset is based on:
> >>>> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/cover/66417/ update ice base code
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that the CI(s) won't handle this.
> >>> Example for the robot: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/builds/152461907
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we could add something as an annotation to the cover letter or
> >>> the first patch of a series so that the CI(s) can detect and try to be
> >>> intelligent?
> >>
> >> Agree, It'd be helpful if the cover letter of the first patch contains some
> >> base tree info including the base commit and dependency patchset info (if any),
> >> so the CI can determine the correct base on top of which the developer's
> >> patchset applies to avoid any apply issue and potential false positive.
> >>
> >> And I know there is one option '--base'' of `git format-patch` which is
> >> dedicated for this kind of usage, it can help create the base tree info block
> >> which can be easily consumed by the CI. Here is the simple intro of it.
> >>
> >> Imagine that on top of the public commit P (already in upstream), the developer
> >> applied well-known (on-flight, in the mailing list but not merged yet) patches
> >> X, Y and Z from somebody else or himself, and then built his three-patch series
> >> A, B, C, the commit history would be like:
> >>
> >> ................................................
> >> ---P---X---Y---Z---A---B---C
> >> ................................................
> >>
> >> With `git format-patch --base=P -3 C`,
> >>
> >> where P could be the exact commit sha, or variants e.g. HEAD~6, we can also use
> >> --base=auto for convenience, the base tree information block will be shown at
> >> the end of the first message the command outputs (either the first patch, or
> >> the cover letter), like this:
> >>
> >> ------------
> >> base-commit: P
> >> prerequisite-patch-id: X
> >> prerequisite-patch-id: Y
> >> prerequisite-patch-id: Z
> >> ------------
> >>
> >> Here P is the commit sha, and X,Y,Z are the patch ids of the dependency patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> With this info in place, I think CI should be able to setup the exact base for
> >> the coming patchset, the missing part I can see is the mapping of
> >> (in-flight patch <-> patch id), since we have all the in-flight patches in
> >> patchwork, creating and maintaining such mapping in DB is doable, what do you
> >> think?
> >
> > I think it would simpler to list dependencies as patchwork ids.
> > Example:
> > 	Depends-on: series-42, patch-12345
> >
> 

Just list the 'series' ? Since it can download the whole patchset with
the single link format like:

Depends-on: series-8843  --> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/series/8843/mbox/

> +1. I don't think it should depend on a base-commit. If it doesn't
> apply/build/work with the latest upstream code then it's a valid error.
> 
> >