From: Wang Xiang <xiang.w.wang@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
Opher Reviv <opher@mellanox.com>,
Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@mellanox.com>,
Dovrat Zifroni <dovrat@marvell.com>,
Prasun Kapoor <pkapoor@marvell.com>,
Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@nxp.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Hong, Yang A" <yang.a.hong@intel.com>,
"Chang, Harry" <harry.chang@intel.com>,
"gu.jian1@zte.com.cn" <gu.jian1@zte.com.cn>,
"shanjiangh@chinatelecom.cn" <shanjiangh@chinatelecom.cn>,
"zhangy.yun@chinatelecom.cn" <zhangy.yun@chinatelecom.cn>,
"lixingfu@huachentel.com" <lixingfu@huachentel.com>,
"wushuai@inspur.com" <wushuai@inspur.com>,
"yuyingxia@yxlink.com" <yuyingxia@yxlink.com>,
"fanchenggang@sunyainfo.com" <fanchenggang@sunyainfo.com>,
"davidfgao@tencent.com" <davidfgao@tencent.com>,
"liuzhong1@chinaunicom.cn" <liuzhong1@chinaunicom.cn>,
"zhaoyong11@huawei.com" <zhaoyong11@huawei.com>,
"oc@yunify.com" <oc@yunify.com>,
"jim@netgate.com" <jim@netgate.com>,
"Ni, Hongjun" <hongjun.ni@intel.com>,
"j.bromhead@titan-ic.com" <j.bromhead@titan-ic.com>,
"deri@ntop.org" <deri@ntop.org>,
"fc@napatech.com" <fc@napatech.com>,
"arthur.su@lionic.com" <arthur.su@lionic.com>,
Guy Kaneti <guyk@marvell.com>, Smadar Fuks <smadarf@marvell.com>,
Liron Himi <lironh@marvell.com>,
"edwin.verplanke@intel.com" <edwin.verplanke@intel.com>,
"keith.wiles@intel.com" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:59:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191014135924.GA50406@hs1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB2424FBDDB78C33CDA334C1A6C8810@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 02:35:00PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wang Xiang <xiang.w.wang@intel.com>
> >
> > Hi Jerin,
> >
> > Thanks for your response. More comments below and inline.
> >
> > 1) I think the size of some varaibles (e.g. nb_matches, scan_size, matching
> > offset, etc) should be increased based on what Hyperscan supports.
> >
> > a) struct rte_regex_ops:
> >
> > uint16_t scan_size => uint32_t scan_size
>
> I think, packet buffers will not be > 64K and getting more than contiguous
> 64K DMAable memory will be difficult in DPDK.
> Other than that, rte_regex_match is 64bit now, increasing width of
> Len could increase the size of "rte_regex_match". i.e Need more
> Bandwidth for response.
> Could other HW implementations share the views on max length
> is supported on their implementation? Based on that we can decide.
>
OK, let's gather ideas from HW implementation.
>
> > uint8_t nb_actual_matches => uint64 nb_actual_matches
> > uint8_t nb_matches => uint64 nb__matches
>
> 2^64 matches will be never possible in practical system. How about 2^16.
>
I think the number of matches depends on the number of total rules and
scan size. Based on the definitions (16-bit nb_rules_per_group,
16-bit nb_groups and 16-bit scan size), the maximum possible matches
could exceed 2^16. Users may get partial matches in this case while
Hyperscan doesn't make compromises. It'll also be good to check other HW
implementation.
>
> >
> > b) struct rte_regex_match:
> > uint16_t offset => uint32_t offset
> > uint16_t len => uint32_t len
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > c) uint16_t
> > rte_regex_rule_db_update(uint8_t dev_id, const struct rte_regex_rule
> > *rules,
> > uint16_t nb_rules);
> > =>
> > uint32_t
> > rte_regex_rule_db_update(uint8_t dev_id, const struct rte_regex_rule
> > *rules,
> > uint32_t nb_rules);
>
> OK. I will change it next version.
>
> >
> > d) int
> > rte_regex_queue_pair_setup(uint8_t dev_id, uint8_t queue_pair_id,
> > const struct rte_regex_qp_conf *qp_conf);
> > =>
> > int
> > rte_regex_queue_pair_setup(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_pair_id,
> > const struct rte_regex_qp_conf *qp_conf);
>
> OK. I will change it next version.
>
> >
> > e) struct rte_regex_dev_config:
> > uint8_t nb_max_matches => uint64_t nb_max_matches
>
> 2^64 matches will be never possible in practical system. How about 2^16.
>
See above.
>
> >
> > f) struct rte_regex_dev_info:
> > uint8_t max_matches => uint64_t max_matches
>
> 2^64 matches will be never possible in practical system. How about 2^16.
>
See above.
>
> >
> > 2) There are rte_regex_dev_attr_get() and rte_regex_dev_attr_set() defined.
> > Are all the attributes below could be set by users? Is any of them read-only?
>
> See below,
>
> > /** Enumerates RegEx device attribute identifier */ enum
> > rte_regex_dev_attr_id {
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_ATTR_SOCKET_ID,
> > /**< The NUMA socket id to which the device is connected or
> > * a default of zero if the socket could not be determined.
> > * datatype: *int*
> > * operation: *get*
>
> *get* means read only. *get* and *set* means it support both operation
>
> > */
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_ATTR_MAX_MATCHES,
> > /**< Maximum number of matches per scan.
> > * datatype: *uint8_t*
> > * operation: *get* and *set*
> > *
> > * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_MAX_MATCH_F
> > */
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_ATTR_MAX_SCAN_TIMEOUT,
> > /**< Upper bound scan time in ns.
> > * datatype: *uint16_t*
> > * operation: *get* and *set*
> > *
> > * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_MAX_SCAN_TIMEOUT_F
> > */
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_ATTR_MAX_PREFIX,
> > /**< Maximum number of prefix detected per scan.
> > * This would be useful for denial of service detection.
> > * datatype: *uint16_t*
> > * operation: *get* and *set*
> > *
> > * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_MAX_PREFIX_F
> > */
> > };
> >
> > 3) Both RTE_REGEX_PCRE_RULE_* and
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_PCRE_UNSUP_* can be viewed as device capabilities. Can we
> > merge them with RTE_REGEX_DEV_CAPA_RUNTIME_COMPILATION_F and have
> > a unified regex_dev_capa in struct rte_regex_dev_info.
>
> Sure. I will fix it next version.
>
> >
> >
> > 4) It'll be good if we can also define synchronous matching API for users who
> > want to have a one-off scan and wait for the results.
>
> Makes sense. I will add synchronous matching API in next version(I understand, it will be useful for SW
> Implementations). Probably expose as INFO flag to expose the it as preference.
>
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:05:39AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > > Hi Xiang,
> > >
> > > Sorry for delay in response(Was busy with 19.11 proposal deadline). Please
> > see inline.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Reply to Xiang's queries in main thread:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Some questions regarding APIs. Could you please give more insights?
> > > >
> > > > 1) rte_regex_ops
> > > > a) rsp_flags
> > > > These two flags RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F and
> > > > RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ_F are used for cross buffer scan.
> > > > RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ_F tells whether we have a partial
> > > > match at the end of current buffer after scan.
> > > > What's the purpose of having RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F?
> > > >
> > > > [Jerin] Since we need three states to represent partial match
> > > > buffer, RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F to represent start of the
> > > > buffer, intermediate buffers with no flag, and end of the buffer
> > > > with RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ
> > >
> > > > [Xiang] How could a user leverage these flags for matching? Suppose
> > > > a large buffer is divided into multiple chunks. Will
> > > > RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F cause an early quit once it isn't set
> > > > after scan the first chunk. Similarly, RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ
> > > > tells a user whether to stop matching future buffers after finish the last
> > chunk?
> > >
> > > Let me describe with an example,
> > >
> > > Assume,
> > > 1) struct rte_regex_dev_info:: max_payload_size set to 1024
> > > 2) rte_regex_dev_config:: dev_cfg_flags configured with
> > > RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_CROSS_BUFFER_SCAN_F
> > > 3) Device programmed with matching "hello\s+world" pattern
> > > 4) user enqueue struct rte_regex_ops:: buf_addr point following "data"
> > > and struct rte_regex_op:: scan_size = 1024
> > >
> > > data[0..1021] = data don???t have hello world pattern data[1022] = 'h'
> > > data[1023] = 'e'
> > >
> > > 5) user enqueue struct rte_regex_ops:: buf_addr point following "data"
> > > and struct rte_regex_op:: scan_size = 9
> > >
> > > data[0] = 'l'
> > > data[1] = 'l'
> > > data[2] = 'o'
> > > data[3] = ' '
> > > data[4] = 'w'
> > > data[5] = 'o'
> > > data[6] = 'r'
> > > data[7] = 'l'
> > > data[8] = 'd'
> > >
> > > If so,
> > >
> > > Response to 4) will be RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F in rte_regex_ops::
> > > rsp_flags on dequeue Where rte_regex_match:: offset is 1022 and len 2
> > >
> > > Response to 5) will be RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ_F in rte_regex_ops::
> > > rsp_flags on dequeue Where rte_regex_match:: offset is 0 and len 9
> > >
> > If the defined pattern is "hello.*world" instead of "hello\s+world", and we
> > enqueue following struct rte_regex_ops:
> >
> > 1) rte_regex_op:: scan_size = 1024
> >
> > data[0..1021] = data don???t have hello world pattern
> > data[1022] = 'h'
> > data[1023] = 'e'
> >
> > 2) rte_regex_op:: scan_size = 9
> > data[0] = 'l'
> > data[1] = 'l'
> > data[2] = 'o'
> > data[3] = ' '
> > data[4] = 'w'
> > data[5] = 'o'
> > data[6] = 'r'
> > data[7] = 'l'
> > data[8] = 'd'
> >
> > 3) rte_regex_op:: scan_size = 5
> > data[0] = 'w'
> > data[1] = 'o'
> > data[2] = 'r'
> > data[3] = 'l'
> > data[4] = 'd'
> >
> > Will response to 3) have RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ_F in rte_regex_ops::
> > rsp_flags on dequeue
> > Where rte_regex_match:: offset is 0 and len 4?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > I am wondering what's your expected behavior for .* or similar syntax and if
> > there are syntax compatability issues. We report all matches in Hyperscan, e.g.
> > report end match offsets 11 and 16 for pattern "hello.*world" and corpus
> > "hello worldworld".
> >
> > BTW, not sure how other hardware devices handle cross buffer scan. Hyperscan
> > doesn't reports matches for start and intermediate buffers but only reports end
> > offset if a full match is found.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_MAX_PREFIX_F: This looks like a definition
> > > > for a specific hardware implementation. I am wondering what this
> > > > PREFIX refers to:)?
> > > >
> > > > [Jerin] Yes. Looks like it is for hardware specific implementation.
> > > > Introduced rte_regex_dev_attr_set/get functions to make it portable
> > > > and To add new implementation specific fields.
> > > > For example, if a rule is
> > > > /ABCDEF.*XYZ/, ABCD is considered the prefix, and EF.*XYZ is
> > > > considered the factor. The prefix is a literal string, while the
> > > > factor can contain complex regular expression constructs. As a
> > > > result, rule matching occurs in two stages: prefix matching and
> > > > factor matching.
> > > >
> > > > b) user_id or user_ptr
> > > > Under what kind of circumstances should an application pass
> > > > value into these variables for enqueue and dequeuer operations?
> > > >
> > > > [Jerin] Just like rte_crypto_ops, struct rte_regex_ops also
> > > > allocated using mempool normally, on enqueue, user can specify
> > > > user_id If needed to in order identify the op on dequeue if
> > > > required. The use case could be to store the sequence number from
> > > > application POV or storing the mbuf ptr in which pattern is requested etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) rte_regex_match
> > > > a) offset; /**< Starting Byte Position for matched rule. */
> > > > and uint16_t len; /**< Length of match in bytes */
> > > > Looks like the matching offset is defined as *starting
> > > > matching offset* instead of *end matching offset*, e.g. report the offset of
> > "a" instead of "c"
> > > > for pattern "abc".
> > > > If so, this makes it hard to integrate software regex
> > > > libraries such as Hyperscan and RE2 as they only report *end
> > > > matching offset* without length of match.
> > > > Although Hyperscan has API for *starting matching offset*, it
> > > > only delivers partial syntax support. So I think we have to define
> > > > *end of matching offset* for software solutions.
> > > >
> > > > [Jerin] I understand the hyperscan's HS_FLAG_SOM_LEFTMOST tradeoffs.
> > > > I thought application would need always the length of the match.
> > > > Probably we will see how other HW implementation (from Mellanox)
> > > > etc. We will try to abstract it, probably we can make it as function
> > > > of "user requested".
> > > > [Xiang] Yes, it will be good to make it per user request. At least
> > > > from Hyperscan user's point of view, start of match and match length
> > > > are not mandatory.
> > >
> > > OK. I think, we can introduce RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_AS_START In
> > > device configure.
> > >
> > > Since offset+len == end, we can introduce following generic inline function.
> > >
> > > static inline
> > > rte_regex_match_end(truct rte_regex_match *match) {
> > > match->offset + match->len;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Example: pattern to match is "hello\s+world" and data is following
> > > data[4] = 'h'
> > > data[5] = 'e'
> > > data[6] = 'l'
> > > data[7] = 'l'
> > > data[8] = 'o'
> > > data[9] = ' '
> > > data[10] = 'w'
> > > data[11] = 'o'
> > > data[12] = 'r'
> > > data[13] = 'l'
> > > data[14] = 'd'
> > >
> > > if device is configured with RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_AS_START
> > > match->offset returns 4
> > > match->len returns 11
> > >
> > > if device is NOT configured with RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_AS_START
> > > driver MAY return the following(in hyperscan case)
> > > match->offset returns 0
> > > match->len returns 11 + 4
> > >
> > > In both case(irrespective of flags, to make application life easy)
> > rte_regex_match_end() would return 15.
> > > If application demands for MATCH_AS_START then driver can return
> > > match->offset returns 4 and match->len returns 11 Aka set
> > > HS_FLAG_SOM_LEFTMOST in hyperscan driver, But application should use
> > rte_regex_match_end() for finding the end of the match. To make, work in all
> > cases.
> > >
> > > Is it OK?
> > >
> > Can we replace len with end offset? So we can change "offset" to "start_offset"
> > and len to "end_ offset" in struct rte_regex_match. Users interested in len
> > could take "end_offset - start_offset".
> > We may also change RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_AS_START to
> > RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_START
> >
> > In your example,
> > if device is configured with RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_START
> > match->start_offset returns 4
> > match->end_offset returns 15
> >
> > if device is NOT configured with RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_START
> > match->start_offset returns 0
> > match->end_offset returns 15
>
>
> This part is little tricky as HW descriptions need to be rewritten on response.
> This is a one issue, I foresee earlier, to come up with rte_regex_match
> That's works for all implementation without performance issue.
>
> We have two HW implementations, both returns start_off and len.
> Lets get input from other HW implementation on the semantics of
> rte_regex_match. Based on that, we can decide how to go about it?
> Thoughts from Mellanox or other vendors?
>
Sure. Let's get more inputs on this.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 3) rte_regex_rule_db_update()
> > > > Does this mean we can dynamically add or delete rules for an
> > > > already generated database without recompile from scratch for
> > > > hardware Regex implementation?
> > > > If so, this isn't possible for software solutions as they don't
> > > > support dynamic database update and require recompile.
> > > >
> > > > [Jerin] rte_regex_rule_db_update() internally it would call
> > > > recompile function for both HW and SW.
> > > > See rte_regex_dev_config::rule_db in rte_regex_dev_configure() for
> > > > precompiled rule database case.
> > > > [Xiang] OK, sounds like we have to save the original rule-set for
> > > > the device in order to do recompile. I see both ADD and REMOVE
> > > > operators from rte_regex_rule.
> > > > For rules with REMOVE operator, what's the expected behavior to
> > > > handle them for the old rule-set? Do we need to go through the old
> > > > rule-set and remove corresponding rules before doing recompile?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > I think it'll be better to change rte_regex_rule_db_update() to
> > rte_regex_rule_compile() and have users to provide a full rule-set.
> > So we don't have to maintain old rule-set and decide which one to keep and
> > remove. We can simply recompile new rule-set and get rid of
> > rte_regex_rule_op in this case.
>
>
> On virtualized, HW implementations, The RULE database is maintained by single
> body. So the above scheme, works with SW and HW implementations.
> And It make user life easy as they don't need to maintain the rules.
>
> I don't have preference on the rte_regex_rule_db_update() name, I can change to
> rte_regex_rule_compile() if required keeping above functionality. Let me know.
>
>
OK, I'm good if your are willing to maintain it for users. Then both
rte_regex_rule_db_update() and rte_regex_rule_compile() work for me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-14 6:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-27 15:50 jerinj
2019-07-15 4:26 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-08-15 9:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-08-15 11:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-08-19 3:09 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-08-20 1:54 ` Wang, Xiang W
2019-09-10 8:05 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-09-19 13:58 ` Wang Xiang
2019-09-27 14:35 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-10-14 13:59 ` Wang Xiang [this message]
2020-01-26 11:55 ` Ori Kam
2019-08-21 5:32 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-08-21 15:12 ` John Bromhead
2019-09-10 10:31 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-09-10 11:02 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-09-27 14:45 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-10-02 5:53 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-10-02 8:31 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-10-02 8:52 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-10-02 9:34 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2020-01-27 21:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/regexdev: " Ori Kam
2020-01-28 9:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] regexdev: " Ori Kam
2020-02-22 16:52 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-02-23 8:41 ` Ori Kam
2020-02-23 9:53 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-02-23 12:33 ` Ori Kam
2020-02-25 5:57 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-02-25 7:48 ` Ori Kam
2020-02-26 9:03 ` Wang Xiang
2020-02-26 8:36 ` Ori Kam
2020-02-27 9:25 ` Wang Xiang
2020-02-27 7:31 ` Ori Kam
2020-02-27 9:16 ` Wang Xiang
2020-02-27 14:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v4] " Ori Kam
2020-02-27 14:55 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-02-27 15:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v5] " Ori Kam
2020-03-01 6:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-01 7:31 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-01 13:23 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-01 14:10 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-01 14:38 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-01 15:41 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-01 15:57 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-02 7:18 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-03-03 7:06 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-02 7:05 ` [dpdk-dev] " Wang Xiang
2020-03-03 7:44 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-03 7:54 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-03-10 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v6] " Ori Kam
2020-03-10 13:42 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-10 16:23 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-10 16:36 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-03-10 17:00 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-12 12:13 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-13 1:20 ` Wang Xiang
2020-03-15 10:05 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-16 1:25 ` Wang Xiang
2020-03-16 9:09 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-16 20:48 ` Wang Xiang
2020-03-16 13:49 ` Ori Kam
2020-03-16 21:10 ` Wang Xiang
2019-10-20 14:09 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191014135924.GA50406@hs1 \
--to=xiang.w.wang@intel.com \
--cc=alexr@mellanox.com \
--cc=arthur.su@lionic.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=davidfgao@tencent.com \
--cc=deri@ntop.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dovrat@marvell.com \
--cc=edwin.verplanke@intel.com \
--cc=fanchenggang@sunyainfo.com \
--cc=fc@napatech.com \
--cc=gu.jian1@zte.com.cn \
--cc=guyk@marvell.com \
--cc=harry.chang@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=hongjun.ni@intel.com \
--cc=j.bromhead@titan-ic.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jim@netgate.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=lironh@marvell.com \
--cc=liuzhong1@chinaunicom.cn \
--cc=lixingfu@huachentel.com \
--cc=nipun.gupta@nxp.com \
--cc=oc@yunify.com \
--cc=opher@mellanox.com \
--cc=pbhagavatula@marvell.com \
--cc=pkapoor@marvell.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=shanjiangh@chinatelecom.cn \
--cc=smadarf@marvell.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=wushuai@inspur.com \
--cc=yang.a.hong@intel.com \
--cc=yuyingxia@yxlink.com \
--cc=zhangy.yun@chinatelecom.cn \
--cc=zhaoyong11@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).