[ovs-dev] Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()."

Ian Stokes ian.stokes at intel.com
Wed Jul 25 14:59:01 UTC 2018


On 7/25/2018 2:56 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> 0-day Robot <robot at bytheb.org> writes:
> 
>> Bleep bloop.  Greetings Tiago Lam, 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.
>>
> 
> Hi Ian (and all),
> 
> Given there are currently two trees (mainline and dpdk_merge), do you
> have any preferences, suggestions, or comments on managing the robot
> w.r.t. these kind of tree-specific patches?  I suspect that we'll have
> others in the future, and I'd like to make the robot be a bit friendlier
> this way (plus it helps to build confidence when there are fewer
> false-positives).
> 
> -Aaron

Is it that you'd like to see 0-day running on dpdk_merge also?

 From my side I think the revert here was an exception, as the pull 
request had not been merged at this point but the assumption was that it 
had been. I encourage people to base patches on what is in master, not 
dpdk_merge.

It's a valid point however, I'm in favor of keeping the mainline as 
clean as possible so typically with a pull request I'll rebase 
dpdk_merge to the head of master, then apply dpdk specific patches on 
top of that so as to ensure its a clean pull request when applying to 
mainline.

If an error does occurs (such as the revert, or a major bug discovery) 
I'll typically rework the patches at the head of dpdk_merge to take this 
into account. I didnt want to see a comit and a revert going into the 
mainline if possible.

I'm happy for 0-day to work on master as is for the moment and 
coordinate with a submitter if a patch is needed and how we handle it?

Ian
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> 



More information about the dev mailing list