[ovs-dev] [PATCHv3] DPDK: add support for v2.0.0

[Kavanagh, Mark B]

>
>On 04/23/2015 11:58 PM, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just a quick poll: are the resolutions to review comments in this patch acceptable to
>everyone?
>>
>> If I've missed anything, or are there any additional opens that need to be addressed
>before it can be merged, just let me know.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>> Update relevant artifacts to add support for DPDK v2.0.0
>>> - INSTALL.DPDK.md
>>> - travis build script
>>> - acinclude.m4: add 'mssse3' flag to OVS_CFLAGS
>>> - netdev-dpdk: fix build with unified offload types in DPDK v2.0.0
>>>
>>> Note that this breaks compatibility with DPDK v1.8.0
>>>
>>> v1: - update DPDK version & build instructions in INSTALL.DPDK.md
>>>     - update DPDK version and remove compile flags in travis/build.sh
>>>     - fix build with unified offload types in DPDK v2.0.0
>>>
>>> v2: - add mssse3 flag to OVS_CFLAGS in acinclude.m4
>>>     - reinstate '-Wno-cast-align' compile flag for clang
>>>     - add details of vhost user support limitations to INSTALL.DPDK.md
>>>     - refactor travis/build.sh to reflect these changes
>>>
>>> v3: -correct minor typos in commit message
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Kavanagh <mark.b.kavanagh at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com>
>
>It feels a bit strange to have signed off something I hadn't seen before
>this (unless it refers to the actual code change) but maybe I'm just
>unfamiliar with the signed-off protocol.
>

Hey Panu,

I included you in the 'signed-off-by' field, due to your earlier contribution re fixing the build with DPDK 2.0 unified rss hash types (http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-March/052022.html).

Contributing.md states 'If the patch has more than one author, all must sign off'; however, maybe in this case it would have been best to allow you to review the patch first, and then you could have signed off when satisfied with the patch in its entirety. Given that you had previously contributed a subset of the content (which, incidentally I had -1'd at the time), I felt it prudent to include you in the tag, rather than leave it open to misinterpretation regarding the origin of the code. 

Any clarification the maintainers could provide on this matter would be greatly appreciated for future reference.

Thanks,
Mark


>That aside, yes the patch looks good to me, please go ahead with it.
>
>	- Panu -