On 3/10/2020 7:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
>
+1 to "Depends-on: series-#####" syntax
