On 7/10/17, 1:37 AM, "Ilya Maximets" <i.maxim...@samsung.com> wrote:
> ‘chceksum’ is misspelled
>
> Since these patches really only affect ‘dpdk’, the module name ‘dpdk’ may
more accurately
> reflect the real effect of these patches.
Please, don't do that. Only patches that changes lib/dpdk.{c,h} should
have 'dpdk' prefix in subject line. All other patches should have proper
module name according to code they're changing.
I wanted to rise this issue many times ago. So, maybe it's time.
There are many places where changes made to improve the DPDK-enabled
datapath, but the most of changes are generic and doesn't have many
DPDK-related code. Such patches doesn't need to have 'dpdk' as a prefix.
This only makes a mess from the git history and you can never say for
sure what module was changed in a particular patch by looking only on its
subject.
These changes affect only the dpdk datapath.
I gave a full response to Sugesh.
IMHO, patches should have prefixes according to modules they're changing
like it is described in contribution guide. Generic changes should be
reviewed by not only people interested in DPDK. Addition of such
misleading prefixes forces them to miss maybe important generic changes.
In this case, the module name is misleading since the changes affect much more
than
just conntrack; that is the point.
The changes affect generic checksum offloading by virtue of changes to
dp-packet.
These changes are in fact specific to dpdk.
From the other side, many people adds 'dpdk' prefix to patches targeted
to 'netdev-dpdk' which is not right too.
All patches should have the right prefix according to the module they are
trying to change. That is my point of view.
In this particular case patches actually adds generic functionality
which can be used even without DPDK. For example, if we'll implement
checksum offloading for netdev-linux (not so hard). DPDK already mentioned
in commit message as the target and there is no need for misleading
prefixes.
That is not correct.
Here in the present, these changes are specific to dpdk. We work with the
present
not one possible hypotectical future.
‘IF’, in future, other code is changed that allows sharing of some code changes
beyond
dpdk, then discussion of netdev-linux becomes relevant. It is not relevant now.
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
