[ovs-dev] conntrack: Check all addresses for ephemeral ports.

[Darrell Ball]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM Aaron Conole <aconole at bytheb.org> wrote:

> Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 12/19/2018 08:23 AM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:57 PM 0-day Robot <robot at bytheb.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bleep bloop.  Greetings Darrell Ball, I am a robot and I have tried out
> >>> your patch.
> >>> Thanks for your contribution.
> >>>
> >>> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting.  See the details
> below.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> checkpatch:
> >>> ERROR: Too many signoffs; are you missing Co-authored-by lines?
> >>> Lines checked: 37, Warnings: 0, Errors: 1
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't understand this complaint.
> >>
> >
> > This is a false positive. I've seen patchwork duplicate signed-off-by's
> > in an mbox before (reported to Stephen,
> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/219) which would cause
> > this error, but downloading this mbox locally it seems ok.
>
> It's a false positive, but not for that reason.  The bot keeps up to date
> with the most recent checkpatch, so it stamps a sign-off as part of the
> delivery chain. The older branch checkpatch version doesn't understand
> that.
>
> We probably should either backport 3267343a8487 ("checkpatch: Improve
> accuracy and specificity of sign-off checking.") to the relevant
> branches so that when someone submits a patch on the branch it's
> checked, -OR- improve the robot to just save off the latest checkpatch
> version before starting to apply patches.  I like the idea of the former
> so that checkpatch changes can self-check, but it comes with a drawback
> (like checkpatch changes won't be invoked until after they're applied to
> the tree .. I guess it isn't such a big deal, though).
>
> OTOH, there is maybe a problem, either with this series or with the 2.10
> branch:
>
>   https://travis-ci.org/ovsrobot/ovs/jobs/469834347
>
> Not sure how this series would have anything to do with it, since the
> failing tests aren't conntrack related as far as I can tell.  Maybe
> worth checking out, though.  Probably some missing commit.
>


The branch 2.10 failing tests are unrelated to this series; those tests
don't run through conntrack.

The test failures are pre-existing:
https://travis-ci.org/darball/ovs_master/jobs/470687402




>
> Thanks, and sorry for the spam!
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please check this out.  If you feel there has been an error, please
> email
> >>> aconole at bytheb.org
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> 0-day Robot
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dev mailing list
> >> dev at openvswitch.org
> >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > dev at openvswitch.org
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>