Hi Darell, Ilya Regards _Sugesh
> -----Original Message----- > From: Darrell Ball [mailto:db...@vmware.com] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:53 PM > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com>; ovs-dev@openvswitch.org; > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > Cc: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chand...@intel.com>; Traynor, Kevin > <kevin.tray...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] conntrack : Add support for rx > chceksum offload. > > > > 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. > > [Sugesh]I sent out the v4 patch already with same conntrack subject line considering that’s the guideline. I don’t mind changing that to dpdk, if we are following the practice to keep subject line based on the patch specific to what. > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev