10/03/2020 03:00, Wang, Haiyue: > > -----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/
Yes, I was proposing both format: series-X and patch-Y (on top of series-X). But we probably never need to be specific about a single patch. I think you are right, we can keep only "series-X" syntax, and allow describing a list of series, ordered and separated with comma.
