Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like 49bcce138374458d1edd1c50d8e5726959108ef4 is already in my tree. I tried applying and checking again anyway and it seems that the error is still present.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:28 AM Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:12:27AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 30/10/2018 19:09, Cody Doucette: > > > OK, I will send three separate patches plus a cover letter. > > > > > > I seem to be having trouble with checkpatch complaining that new > symbols > > > are not inserted into the EXPERIMENTAL section of the .map file: > > > > > > ERROR: symbol break is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol const is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol &frag_hdr_buf) is added in a section other than the > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > > INFO: symbol frag_hdr is being removed, ensure that it has gone > > > through the deprecation process > > > INFO: symbol is added but patch has insuficient context to determine > > > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL > > > ERROR: symbol offset, is added in a section other than the > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol offset is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > INFO: symbol is added but patch has insuficient context to determine > > > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL > > > ERROR: symbol sizeof(*frag_hdr), is added in a section other than the > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol size_t is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > INFO: symbol struct is being removed, ensure that it has gone through > > > the deprecation process > > > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL > > > section of the version map > > > ERROR: symbol uint8_t is added in a section other than the > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > > > > > Even when moving the new symbol into the EXPERIMENTAL version and > > > recreating the patch, checkpatch still issues the same errors. > > > > > > Can I leave the .map file as it is in v3? If not, any suggestions on > what > > > checkpatch is looking for me to do here? > > > > Don't worry, it is a bug in the script. > > +Cc Neil who already looked at this issue. > > > I need to look at the submitted patch to confirm, which I don't have time > to do > at this moment, but my first though is that yes, this is fixed by recent > commit > 49bcce138374458d1edd1c50d8e5726959108ef4. Can you try applying and > building to > the current head and see if the issue is resolved? > > Neil > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:36 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 30/10/2018 10:46, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > > > 28/10/2018 21:54, Cody Doucette: > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM Thomas Monjalon < > tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 27/07/2018 15:52, Cody Doucette: > > > > > > > > > Extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header() to skip > over any > > > > > > > > > other IPv6 extension headers when finding the fragment > header. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to RFC 8200, there is no guarantee that the IPv6 > > > > > > > > > Fragment extension header will come before any other > extension > > > > > > > > > header, even though it is recommended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cody Doucette <douce...@bu.edu> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qiaobin Fu <qiaob...@bu.edu> > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michel Machado <mic...@digirati.com.br> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > v3: > > > > > > > > > * Removed compilation flag D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 from the > > > > > > > > > failsafe driver to allow compilation on freebsd. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How failsafe is related to ip_frag? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > > > > * Moved IPv6 extension header definitions to lib_net. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/failsafe/Makefile | 1 - > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/failsafe/meson.build | 1 - > > > > > > > > > examples/ip_reassembly/main.c | 6 ++-- > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag.h | 23 > ++++++------- > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag_version.map | 1 + > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 38 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_reassembly.c | 4 +-- > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h | 27 > +++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_port/rte_port_ras.c | 6 ++-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in failsafe, rte_net and rte_port look like garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, the ip_frag part requires some review. > > > > > > > > +Cc Konstantin, the maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garbage in what sense? I would be happy to amend with a little > more > > > > > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The changes to failsafe and rte_net were from previous reviews > from > > > > > > > Konstantin: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-June/106023.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108701.html > > > > > > > > > > > > After a better look, the change in rte_port is fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > But the changes in failsafe and rte_net would be better in their > own > > > > patch. > > > > > > You can have 3 patches in a patchset (with a cover letter to > explain > > > > the > > > > > > global idea). > > > > > > Then, failsafe and rte_net changes must be reviewed by their > > > > maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch looks good to me. > > > > > About failsafe changes - the reason for that was that failsafe > driver > > > > didn't build > > > > > properly with the proposed changes. > > > > > Gaetan was ok to remove that extra compiler flag: > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108826.html > > > > > > > > OK. Please send the failsafe patch as the first of the series. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >