30/10/2018 19:09, Cody Doucette: > OK, I will send three separate patches plus a cover letter. > > I seem to be having trouble with checkpatch complaining that new symbols > are not inserted into the EXPERIMENTAL section of the .map file: > > ERROR: symbol break is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol const is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol &frag_hdr_buf) is added in a section other than the > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > INFO: symbol frag_hdr is being removed, ensure that it has gone > through the deprecation process > INFO: symbol is added but patch has insuficient context to determine > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL > ERROR: symbol offset, is added in a section other than the > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > ERROR: symbol offset is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > INFO: symbol is added but patch has insuficient context to determine > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL > ERROR: symbol sizeof(*frag_hdr), is added in a section other than the > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > ERROR: symbol size_t is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > INFO: symbol struct is being removed, ensure that it has gone through > the deprecation process > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > section of the version map > ERROR: symbol uint8_t is added in a section other than the > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > Even when moving the new symbol into the EXPERIMENTAL version and > recreating the patch, checkpatch still issues the same errors. > > Can I leave the .map file as it is in v3? If not, any suggestions on what > checkpatch is looking for me to do here?
Don't worry, it is a bug in the script. +Cc Neil who already looked at this issue. > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:36 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > wrote: > > > 30/10/2018 10:46, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > 28/10/2018 21:54, Cody Doucette: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > 27/07/2018 15:52, Cody Doucette: > > > > > > > Extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header() to skip over any > > > > > > > other IPv6 extension headers when finding the fragment header. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to RFC 8200, there is no guarantee that the IPv6 > > > > > > > Fragment extension header will come before any other extension > > > > > > > header, even though it is recommended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cody Doucette <douce...@bu.edu> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qiaobin Fu <qiaob...@bu.edu> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michel Machado <mic...@digirati.com.br> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > v3: > > > > > > > * Removed compilation flag D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 from the > > > > > > > failsafe driver to allow compilation on freebsd. > > > > > > > > > > > > How failsafe is related to ip_frag? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > > * Moved IPv6 extension header definitions to lib_net. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/failsafe/Makefile | 1 - > > > > > > > drivers/net/failsafe/meson.build | 1 - > > > > > > > examples/ip_reassembly/main.c | 6 ++-- > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag.h | 23 ++++++------- > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag_version.map | 1 + > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 38 > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_reassembly.c | 4 +-- > > > > > > > lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h | 27 +++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > lib/librte_port/rte_port_ras.c | 6 ++-- > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in failsafe, rte_net and rte_port look like garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, the ip_frag part requires some review. > > > > > > +Cc Konstantin, the maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > Garbage in what sense? I would be happy to amend with a little more > > > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > The changes to failsafe and rte_net were from previous reviews from > > > > > Konstantin: > > > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-June/106023.html > > > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108701.html > > > > > > > > After a better look, the change in rte_port is fine. > > > > > > > > But the changes in failsafe and rte_net would be better in their own > > patch. > > > > You can have 3 patches in a patchset (with a cover letter to explain > > the > > > > global idea). > > > > Then, failsafe and rte_net changes must be reviewed by their > > maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > The patch looks good to me. > > > About failsafe changes - the reason for that was that failsafe driver > > didn't build > > > properly with the proposed changes. > > > Gaetan was ok to remove that extra compiler flag: > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108826.html > > > > OK. Please send the failsafe patch as the first of the series. > > Thanks > > > > > > >
