[ovs-dev] [ovs-dev, PATCHv8, 1/3] Improved Packet Drop Statistics in OVS
Aaron Conole
aconole at redhat.com
Tue Feb 12 16:22:12 UTC 2019
Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com> writes:
> On 12.02.2019 18:55, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com> writes:
>>
>>> Aaron, ovsrobot doesn't check this patch for some reason.
>>> I suspect, it's because "PATCH" and "v8" are glued together.
>>> Could you, please, take a look.
>>
>> It won't. But not for that reason. The patch info says that this is
>> patch 1 of 3. But 2/3 and 3/3 haven't been posted. So doing a pull
>> from patchwork states:
>>
>> "total":3,"received_total":1,"received_all":false
>>
>> Because the patchwork thinks it hasn't received all the patches, it
>> defers trying to process the series. In this case, the submitter may
>> have intended to post 2 more patches that never hit the list. Maybe we
>> can revisit the way the robot works now that it creates a special branch
>> for each series that can be modified.
>
> Thanks for checking. Did you thought about checking patches in a series one
> by one ?
We do. But we don't start processing the series until all the patches
are received. The reason is for ordering. It's possible that we get
1/3 and 3/3, and if we start processing we will apply 1/3, but then 3/3
won't apply. There could be more logic added to address this, but then
we'll need to re-start the whole monitor mechanism and tell it to run
all over again - and what happens if the patches *never* arrive... the
system will be spinning in loops.
> I mean that we definitely want all the patches to not break the
> build. For this purpose ovsrobot needs to apply patches one by one and
> check.
For each patch, we only check that the build doesn't break. The full
make-check does take a long time to run, so I pushed it until the end of
the series.
> This way, I guess, there could be possible to avoid this kind of
> misunderstanding with subject prefixes as patch 1/3 should be checked first
> anyway. OTOH, this will increase testing time significantly.
See above for why it's more complex to do partial series. Maybe there's
a better design? Pull requests to https://github.com/orgcandman/pw-ci
are always welcome :)
>>
>> Perhaps this should have been posted without the '1/3' series counter?
>
> Yes. I guess, Anju wanted this patch to be treated as a single patch.
I can manually kick it off if one is ever missing. OTOH, since you've
already noted lots of problems, maybe it's best that Anju submit a v9
with the correct metadata. :)
More information about the dev
mailing list