Re: [ovs-dev] Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()."
Ian Stokes writes: > On 7/25/2018 2:56 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: >> 0-day Robot writes: >> >>> Bleep bloop. Greetings Tiago Lam, I am a robot and I have tried out your >>> patch. >>> Thanks for your contribution. >>> >>> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below. >>> >> >> Hi Ian (and all), >> >> Given there are currently two trees (mainline and dpdk_merge), do you >> have any preferences, suggestions, or comments on managing the robot >> w.r.t. these kind of tree-specific patches? I suspect that we'll have >> others in the future, and I'd like to make the robot be a bit friendlier >> this way (plus it helps to build confidence when there are fewer >> false-positives). >> >> -Aaron > > Is it that you'd like to see 0-day running on dpdk_merge also? I think I was wondering if you would like to see it running against dpdk_merge. :) > From my side I think the revert here was an exception, as the pull > request had not been merged at this point but the assumption was that > it had been. I encourage people to base patches on what is in master, > not dpdk_merge. Good to know. As a side, maybe it's time to formally document things so that folks will base their contributions on the mainline always? The growing pains of multi-tree projects :) > It's a valid point however, I'm in favor of keeping the mainline as > clean as possible so typically with a pull request I'll rebase > dpdk_merge to the head of master, then apply dpdk specific patches on > top of that so as to ensure its a clean pull request when applying to > mainline. > > If an error does occurs (such as the revert, or a major bug discovery) > I'll typically rework the patches at the head of dpdk_merge to take > this into account. I didnt want to see a comit and a revert going into > the mainline if possible. > > I'm happy for 0-day to work on master as is for the moment and > coordinate with a submitter if a patch is needed and how we handle it? Okay, that makes sense to me. For now, I'll leave it running as-is. Thanks, Ian! > Ian >> ___ >> dev mailing list >> d...@openvswitch.org >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev >> ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()."
On 7/25/2018 2:56 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: 0-day Robot writes: Bleep bloop. Greetings Tiago Lam, I am a robot and I have tried out your patch. Thanks for your contribution. I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below. Hi Ian (and all), Given there are currently two trees (mainline and dpdk_merge), do you have any preferences, suggestions, or comments on managing the robot w.r.t. these kind of tree-specific patches? I suspect that we'll have others in the future, and I'd like to make the robot be a bit friendlier this way (plus it helps to build confidence when there are fewer false-positives). -Aaron Is it that you'd like to see 0-day running on dpdk_merge also? From my side I think the revert here was an exception, as the pull request had not been merged at this point but the assumption was that it had been. I encourage people to base patches on what is in master, not dpdk_merge. It's a valid point however, I'm in favor of keeping the mainline as clean as possible so typically with a pull request I'll rebase dpdk_merge to the head of master, then apply dpdk specific patches on top of that so as to ensure its a clean pull request when applying to mainline. If an error does occurs (such as the revert, or a major bug discovery) I'll typically rework the patches at the head of dpdk_merge to take this into account. I didnt want to see a comit and a revert going into the mainline if possible. I'm happy for 0-day to work on master as is for the moment and coordinate with a submitter if a patch is needed and how we handle it? Ian ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()."
0-day Robot writes: > Bleep bloop. Greetings Tiago Lam, I am a robot and I have tried out your > patch. > Thanks for your contribution. > > I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below. > Hi Ian (and all), Given there are currently two trees (mainline and dpdk_merge), do you have any preferences, suggestions, or comments on managing the robot w.r.t. these kind of tree-specific patches? I suspect that we'll have others in the future, and I'd like to make the robot be a bit friendlier this way (plus it helps to build confidence when there are fewer false-positives). -Aaron ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()."
Bleep bloop. Greetings Tiago Lam, I am a robot and I have tried out your patch. Thanks for your contribution. I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below. git-am: fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (lib/dp-packet.c). Repository lacks necessary blobs to fall back on 3-way merge. Cannot fall back to three-way merge. Patch failed at 0001 Revert "dp-packet: Handle multi-seg mbufs in resize__()." The copy of the patch that failed is found in: /var/lib/jenkins/jobs/upstream_build_from_pw/workspace/.git/rebase-apply/patch When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --resolved". If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead. To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort". Please check this out. If you feel there has been an error, please email acon...@bytheb.org Thanks, 0-day Robot ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
