Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 11:33 PM > To: Chen, Jing D > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Fix a vlan bug > > 2014-12-04 14:29, Chen, Jing D: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2014-12-04 10:30, Chen, Jing D: > > > > As I don't know what commit he is based on, I'd like to generate a > > > > new > > > patch with latest dpdk repo. > > > > > > There's something wrong here. You rework a patch and you don't know > > > what was the current status but you expect that the reviewers can > > > understand it better than you? > > > > You don't understand me. Please read my above words again. > > Yes there probably is a misunderstanding. > > > As I said, he is in vacation, I came to fix problem. I know exactly what's > > the > problem. So, I used simple way. > > So Huawei was trying to fix the bug and you suggest another way to fix it. > But you didn't explain why your fix is better than the previous one. > And we don't know if it's the continuation of his work or not. > If you are trying to fix exactly the same problem, incrementing the version > number of the patch makes clear that previous version doesn't need to be > reviewed, reworked or applied. In patchwork language, it supersedes the > previous patch which won't appear anymore. >
OK, I prefer to follow Huawei's patch set and drop my commit. > > > You are breaking all the elementary rules of patch management. > > > > Please kindly list all the elementary rules of patch management, please. > > If possible, can you post it somewhere so other new guys can find and > follow? > > They are explained in http://dpdk.org/dev#send. > That's the ones I've enumerated in my first email: > - changelog > - increment version number (v5 here) > - use --in-reply-to > Thanks for explanation. > > > We have currently 2 fixes pending for the same bug. > > To sum it up, we need: > 1) a review > 2) an agreement that the Huawei's fix is superseded by this one > > Thank you > -- > Thomas > > > > PS: please don't top post. > > > > I apologized for top post. > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:26 PM > > > > > To: Chen, Jing D > > > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Fix a vlan bug > > > > > > > > > > 2014-12-04 10:18, Qiu, Michael: > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Huawei (huawei.xie at intel.com) has one patch set to fix > > > > > > this > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > If your patch is totally different with him: > > > > > > > > > > > > [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] lib/librte_pmd_i40e: set vlan filter > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > please ignore my comments :) > > > > > > > > > > > > But you both calculation are different. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, please Jing (Mark), if you reworked the v4 patch, it would > > > > > clearer to have a changelog, to name it v5 and to insert it in > > > > > the previous thread with --in-reply-to. > > > > > At the moment, both patches block each other. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Thomas > >