[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] conntrack : Add support for rx chceksum offload.

Chandran, Sugesh sugesh.chandran at intel.com
Mon Jul 10 10:28:25 UTC 2017



Regards
_Sugesh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets at samsung.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:37 AM
> To: ovs-dev at openvswitch.org; Darrell Ball <dball at vmware.com>; Ben Pfaff
> <blp at ovn.org>
> Cc: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>; Traynor, Kevin
> <kevin.traynor at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] conntrack : Add support for rx
> chceksum offload.
> 
> > ‘chceksum’ is misspelled
> >
[Sugesh] Will correct in next version.
> > Since these patches really only affect ‘dpdk’, the module name ‘dpdk’
> > may more accurately reflect the real effect of these patches.
> 
> Please, don't do that. Only patches that changes lib/dpdk.{c,h} should have
> 'dpdk' prefix in subject line. All other patches should have proper module
> name according to code they're changing.
> 
> I wanted to rise this issue many times ago. So, maybe it's time.
> There are many places where changes made to improve the DPDK-enabled
> datapath, but the most of changes are generic and doesn't have many DPDK-
> related code. Such patches doesn't need to have 'dpdk' as a prefix.
> This only makes a mess from the git history and you can never say for sure
> what module was changed in a particular patch by looking only on its subject.
> 
> IMHO, patches should have prefixes according to modules they're changing
> like it is described in contribution guide. Generic changes should be reviewed
> by not only people interested in DPDK. Addition of such misleading prefixes
> forces them to miss maybe important generic changes.
> 
> From the other side, many people adds 'dpdk' prefix to patches targeted to
> 'netdev-dpdk' which is not right too.
> All patches should have the right prefix according to the module they are
> trying to change. That is my point of view.
> 
> 
> In this particular case patches actually adds generic functionality which can be
> used even without DPDK. For example, if we'll implement checksum
> offloading for netdev-linux (not so hard). DPDK already mentioned in commit
> message as the target and there is no need for misleading prefixes.
> 
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
[Sugesh] I put the subject line as conntrack with the same view as Ilya.
I assume it is guideline for the subject line. Darrel , Do you think otherwise?




More information about the dev mailing list