I sent the patches to Ouyang with my Signed-off. He did the testing with current DPDK.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Qiu, Michael <michael.qiu at intel.com> wrote: > On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM > >> To: Ouyang, Changchun > >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation > >> > >> Hi Changchun, > >> > >> 2014-12-08 14:21, Ouyang Changchun: > >>> This patch set bases on two original RFC patch sets from Stephen > >> Hemminger[stephen at networkplumber.org] > >>> Refer to [http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-August/004845.html ] > for > >> the original one. > >>> This patch set also resolves some conflict with latest codes and > removed > >> duplicated codes. > >> > >> As you sent the patches, you appear as the author. > >> But I guess Stephen should be the author for some of them. > >> Please check who has contributed the most in each patch to decide. > > You are right, most of patches originate from Stephen's patchset, except > for the last one, > > To be honest, I am ok whoever is the author of this patch set, :-), > > We could co-own the feature of Single virtio if you all agree with it, > and I think we couldn't finish > > Such a feature without collaboration among us, this is why I tried to > communicate with most of you > > to collect more feedback, suggestion and comments for this feature. > > Very appreciate for all kinds of feedback, suggestion here, especially > for patch set from Stephen. > > > > According to your request, how could we make this patch set looks more > like Stephen as the author? > > Currently I add Stephen as Signed-off-by list in each patch(I got the > agreement from Stephen before doing this :-)). > > Hi Ouyang, > > "Signed-off-by" should be added by himself, because the one who in the > Signed-off-by list should take responsibility for it(like potential > bugs/issues). > > Although, lots of patches are originate from Stephen, we still need > himself add this line :) > > If DPDK community's Signed-off-by" rule is different from linux(qemu, > etc.), please ignore my comment :) > > Thanks, > Michael > > > Need I send all patchset to Stephen and let Stephen send out them to > dpdk.org? > > Or any other better solution? > > If you has better suggestion, I assume it works for all subsequent RFC > and normal patch set. > > > > Any other suggestions are welcome. > > > > Thanks > > Changchun > > > > > > > > > >
