On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Ian Stokes wrote:
> On 6/25/2018 7:56 PM, 0-day Robot wrote:
> >Bleep bloop. Greetings Ian Stokes, 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.
> >
> >
> >checkpatch:
> >== Checking d0b5c881a538 ("dpdk: Support both shared and per port
> >mempools.") ==
> >WARNING: Comment with 'xxx' marker
> >#506 FILE: lib/netdev-dpdk.c:591:
> > * XXX: this is a really rough method of provisioning memory.
> >
> >WARNING: Comment with 'xxx' marker
> >#519 FILE: lib/netdev-dpdk.c:604:
> > * XXX: rough estimation of number of mbufs required for this port:
> >
> >Lines checked: 890, Warnings: 2, Errors: 0
> >
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> These warnings were flagged in an earlier review but I was going to leave
> the markers as there are some new features being introduced in DPDK that
> would allow us to add hugepage memory at runtime, we'll get this
> functionality if/when we move to DPDK 18.11, I feel it would warrant
> re-examining these values then as we may be able to request more accurate
> memory requirements at that point.
Not all warnings need to be fixed before applying a patch. I think that
"XXX" warnings are a good example. I still like to see checkpatch call
them out because sometimes they should be fixed before applying.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
