On 3 June 2015 at 11:22, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> The agreed to format for git send-email is --subject-prefix="API-NEXT > PATCH" (or PATCHv2, etc.) > Or, do you wait for me to send it again with an another patch implementing this behaviour across our codebase? I thought I should send it once it gets commited to api-next. Answers to questions like these should now be here (near bottom of page) [1] in the Bylaws and Release & Branch Plan, if we are missing something lets add it. [1] http://www.opendataplane.org/downloads/ To enter API-NEXT as a new API all that is needed is a header file. To enter API-NEXT as a change to an API the test need to be modified to work with the change. In both cases the patch must be on the list 24 hours, get a review and by acked by Petri. Before anything can migrate to Master it must have a linux-generic implementation and tests and be scheduled to be in an API release that are nominally quarterly. > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Zoltan Kiss <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think there might be some ambiguity here: I understand that the correct >> format of subject line is [PATCH API-NEXT], rather than lower case, I'll do >> my best not to forget that next time. But do you expect me to resend the >> patch with a different subject line? I assume however picks this up >> (Maxim?) is already aware of this minor mistake and picks it up anyway, but >> I might be wrong. >> Or, do you wait for me to send it again with an another patch >> implementing this behaviour across our codebase? I thought I should send it >> once it gets commited to api-next. >> And finally, should the subject line of this next patch start with [PATCH >> API-NEXT] as well? >> >> Regards, >> >> Zoli >> >> On 28/05/15 15:28, Bill Fischofer wrote: >> >>> We agreed that *any* change to the include/odp directory would be >>> flagged API-NEXT (avoids having to make decisions). We can then decide >>> which to cherry-pick into the mainline on an expedited basis for simple >>> things like documentation only changes, but these would be reviewed on a >>> case-by-case basis. >>> >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Zoltan Kiss <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I missed that prefix. Do you want me to resend the patch? >>> I'll send an another patch to implement this behaviour in the repo >>> wherever odp_pktio_send is called. But I think we can't create a >>> unit test for it, can we? >>> >>> On 28/05/15 14:56, Bill Fischofer wrote: >>> >>> This needs to be API-NEXT as it is a change to an API file. >>> >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - >>> FI/Espoo) >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Petri Savolainen <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>> >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>] On Behalf Of ext >>> > Zoltan Kiss >>> > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:19 PM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]>> >>> > Subject: [lng-odp] [PATCH] api-next: packet_io: clarify >>> what >>> happens when >>> > not all packets are sent >>> > >>> > Currently our examples are not handling this situation >>> as well. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>> >>> > --- >>> > include/odp/api/packet_io.h | 4 +++- >>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> > >>> > diff --git a/include/odp/api/packet_io.h >>> b/include/odp/api/packet_io.h >>> > index 89356a6..b97b2b8 100644 >>> > --- a/include/odp/api/packet_io.h >>> > +++ b/include/odp/api/packet_io.h >>> > @@ -111,7 +111,9 @@ int odp_pktio_recv(odp_pktio_t pktio, >>> odp_packet_t >>> > pkt_table[], int len); >>> > * @param pkt_table[] Array of packets to send >>> > * @param len length of pkt_table[] >>> > * >>> > - * @return Number of packets sent >>> > + * @return Number of packets sent. If it is less than >>> 'len', the >>> > remaining >>> > + * packets at the end of pkt_table[] are left intact, >>> and caller >>> has to >>> > take >>> > + * care of them. >>> > * @retval <0 on failure >>> > */ >>> > int odp_pktio_send(odp_pktio_t pktio, odp_packet_t >>> pkt_table[], >>> int len); >>> > -- >>> > 1.9.1 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lng-odp mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]>> >>> > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lng-odp mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]>> >>> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >>> >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > > -- Mike Holmes Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
