> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 03:34 > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com>; Ye, Xiaolong > <xiaolong...@intel.com> > Cc: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Zhang, Qi Z > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Yang, > Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhao1, > Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; > Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>; c...@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] add Intel DCF PMD support > > 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 > > >
Just list the 'series' ? Since it can download the whole patchset with the single link format like: Depends-on: series-8843 --> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/series/8843/mbox/ > +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. > > >
