On 09/03/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 09/03/2020 17:20, Ye Xiaolong: >> Hi, David >> >> On 03/09, David Marchand wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> A DCF (Device Config Function) based approach is proposed where a device >>>> bound to the device's VF0 can act as a sole controlling entity to exercise >>>> advance functionality (such as switch, ACL) for rest of the VFs. >>>> >>>> The DCF works as a standalone PMD to support this function, which shares >>>> the >>>> ice PMD flow control core function and the iavf virtchnl mailbox core >>>> module. >>>> >>>> This patchset is based on: >>>> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/cover/66417/ update ice base code >>> >>> The problem is that the CI(s) won't handle this. >>> Example for the robot: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/builds/152461907 >>> >>> Maybe we could add something as an annotation to the cover letter or >>> the first patch of a series so that the CI(s) can detect and try to be >>> intelligent? >> >> Agree, It'd be helpful if the cover letter of the first patch contains some >> base tree info including the base commit and dependency patchset info (if >> any), >> so the CI can determine the correct base on top of which the developer's >> patchset applies to avoid any apply issue and potential false positive. >> >> And I know there is one option '--base'' of `git format-patch` which is >> dedicated for this kind of usage, it can help create the base tree info block >> which can be easily consumed by the CI. Here is the simple intro of it. >> >> Imagine that on top of the public commit P (already in upstream), the >> developer >> applied well-known (on-flight, in the mailing list but not merged yet) >> patches >> X, Y and Z from somebody else or himself, and then built his three-patch >> series >> A, B, C, the commit history would be like: >> >> ................................................ >> ---P---X---Y---Z---A---B---C >> ................................................ >> >> With `git format-patch --base=P -3 C`, >> >> where P could be the exact commit sha, or variants e.g. HEAD~6, we can also >> use >> --base=auto for convenience, the base tree information block will be shown at >> the end of the first message the command outputs (either the first patch, or >> the cover letter), like this: >> >> ------------ >> base-commit: P >> prerequisite-patch-id: X >> prerequisite-patch-id: Y >> prerequisite-patch-id: Z >> ------------ >> >> Here P is the commit sha, and X,Y,Z are the patch ids of the dependency >> patches. >> >> >> With this info in place, I think CI should be able to setup the exact base >> for >> the coming patchset, the missing part I can see is the mapping of >> (in-flight patch <-> patch id), since we have all the in-flight patches in >> patchwork, creating and maintaining such mapping in DB is doable, what do you >> think? > > I think it would simpler to list dependencies as patchwork ids. > Example: > Depends-on: series-42, patch-12345 >
+1. I don't think it should depend on a base-commit. If it doesn't apply/build/work with the latest upstream code then it's a valid error. >
