On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 19:29:54 +0200
> Stanislaw Kardach <k...@semihalf.com> wrote:
>
> > The lpm_process_event_pkt() can either process a packet using an
> > architecture specific (defined for X86/SSE, ARM/Neon and PPC64/Altivec)
> > path or a scalar one. The choice is however done using an ifdef
> > pre-processor macro. Because of that the scalar version was apparently
> > not widely excersized/compiled.
> > Due to some copy/paste errors, the scalar logic in
> > lpm_process_event_pkt() retained a "continue" statement where a BAD_PORT
> > should be returned after refactoring of the LPM logic in the l3fwd
> > example.
> >
> > Fixes: 99fc91d18082 ("examples/l3fwd: add event lpm main loop")
> > Cc: pbhagavat...@marvell.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Kardach <k...@semihalf.com>
> > Sponsored-by: Frank Zhao <frank.z...@starfivetech.com>
> > Sponsored-by: Sam Grove <sam.gr...@sifive.com>
>
> Would be easier to get merged if bug fixes came as separate patch
> submission.
>
Sure, I can post this separately. The reason for posting this along with
RISC-V patches is that those depend on this one. So I could add
"depends-on" but wanted be on the safe side.
>
> Also have not seen Sponsored-by before; what do you expect it to mean?
> Never used in DPDK or kernel git tree.
>
The idea is that this work was sponsored by the companies mentioned in the
sign-off. It is used i.e. in FreeBSD though admittedly never in Linux or
DPDK.
Alternative, which makes checkpatch happy and was previously used is
"Suggested-by". However suggestion, doesn't necessary mean sponsorship.
I had a talk about this with Thomas Monjalon and he has also leaned towards
"Sponsored-by".
I'm open to suggestions as I admit, I'm not sure which route is better.
