Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:36 PM > To: Tan, Jianfeng; Yuanhan Liu > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/tep_term: fix offload on > VXLAN failure > > 2016-09-12 08:42, Tan, Jianfeng: > > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com] > > > FYI, my testrobot caught some errors when this patch is applied. > > > > It's because this patch set has dependency on a previous patch set, which > seems a difficult scenario to handle. There's no standard to state the > dependency, right? > > No there is no standard to state the dependency. > We need one. Actually, there are 3 kinds of dependencies: > - a well know dependency when sending a patch > - implicit dependency on the HEAD > (can fail if a conflicting patch is pushed) > - dependency on a specific tree (next-*) > > I suggest using: > Depends-on: pw <patchwork-id-of-the-patch>|<tree> <hash> > Examples: > Depends-on: pw 33000 > Depends-on: master 3643b0f > Depends-on: next-net f33e00 > > It won't work well when a patch depends on a pending patch series > because the cover letter has no patchwork identifier. > It will be solved with the next version of patchwork (in few months). > In the meantime, we can point to the first patch of the series. > > Comments/ideas?
I think it's a great idea which can make the work of auto tools much more easier and less false positive errors. Besides, it will improve the experience of code review. Thanks, Jianfeng