On 5/3/23 16:00, Ivan Malov wrote: > Hello Simon, > > This patch has me intrigued. By the looks of it, it bears uncanny > resemblance to patch [1] by another author. Is your patch based > on patch [1]? If yes, could you please comment on the following: > > 1) Your patch does not seem to reference the original author. > Why is it so? Is there a problem, colleagues?
When re-using someone else's work, please, retain the original authorship. I see there are changes made to the patch, but it's the same as the original in many parts. Since you made changes, you should add yourself as co-authors. If you feel that changes made are more significant than the original ptch, then you may swap the authorship, but you should add the original author to the list of co-authors anyway. > > 2) Your patch does not seem to address review feedback [2]. > There's a problem that has been indicated by Eli, > regarding flow flush. Doesn't it still stand? In this version the rte_flow_flush() call is added instead of failing the detach. However, a. the flush operation should have already been executed from the higher layer from do_del_port() in dpif-netdev. So, it should not be needed. b. The problem doesn't apper to be addressed, because related ports will not get their flows flushed. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > Interested to hear your input on this. Thank you. > > [1] https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2023-February/402152.html > > [2] https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2023-February/402172.html _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
