From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F97CA0505; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB7240685; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEBD4283F for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:12:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1649142725; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GscSfFmkv5f9sMwxcMEg/pHYRNqYHBaFFExtJjBAvCA=; b=aOZWaU9d24Vc5F6Y8oNFFOXW+H+KwpG6tUwJhJXljOYwbZ4zegxqLeWq558THSmlVxBdgw t1X27XuJPbmRWSb/A8YVBYPS3UCfdFx7cAR7b2BE1CKXDUInEixFi0Jo3p1GR+usSugsKh F2CVmcJ9tWIR0EQtxR4ckagmQLvhu+I= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-329-c3Jp2TCbM-KYHpGGNAPnJg-1; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 03:12:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: c3Jp2TCbM-KYHpGGNAPnJg-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id f39-20020a0565123b2700b0044f567f870dso1455274lfv.13 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:12:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GscSfFmkv5f9sMwxcMEg/pHYRNqYHBaFFExtJjBAvCA=; b=YwTqdGY0PNnsrLfWyjhk4tVLll+vIBJuFkweRuLpw9/pAAyC2mErCLeKVmX/3htYp4 tF3OgFPht82rIZZWR32F7bZCqC131Te/Z9jQ5kIoGCWAXJ3TlpcfNu+up+Mlay6DilzK Ghzth6DlLSXoihKg5I3cEBKlQMJ4Ds6EHbciIj0jq76OhjXryhBArYT4soD++i1O4hY1 1AtGozDwtReWbwZTQlVbZeMroIfCNH/DeCwhUGgqXDKnR0g5WHilQ4sg07ZlCyJhV7H9 +T9ByqQ+q8cUCgnAIrf7H+R8UjAzz/U2Ty9G6Xaw6eW/bW+xiXa5VGcZjI6uC2TwV8wV KO4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533G+0V4PU7F5xslREIVrET3QoMvIaepcJS5Qu1FNaDK+aHV4xaC N2acaSQh5MmQydzcpuYnUVWNR2V/8bN6aubjl1AoFAXuE8vKb6YD2YFGw1FYzRlTgq0fUvusMDM ewWmrf3na5x7WoMVt+Rg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1389:b0:45d:30d4:8cdd with SMTP id p9-20020a056512138900b0045d30d48cddmr1679175lfa.484.1649142720147; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzR/zdvasPVIJt6nBhkjpl10are7uzwT2vP5uM/uHkKsbymsaH7r3Rvd28CfhGe1yAIFT0Vb718Xhd5BUVw4d4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1389:b0:45d:30d4:8cdd with SMTP id p9-20020a056512138900b0045d30d48cddmr1679155lfa.484.1649142719957; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:11:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220328121758.26632-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220330134956.18927-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/9] vhost lock annotations To: Ali Alnubani Cc: dev , Maxime Coquelin , "Xia, Chenbo" , Jiayu Hu , "Wang, YuanX" , Xuan Ding , Kevin Traynor Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:37 PM Ali Alnubani wrote: > > [..] > > It looks like mimecast shot the first patch (which I sent in place of > > Maxime, because this series should go through the main repo). > > > > Looking at the mail source, I see: > > > > X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation > > Protection Definition;Similar Internal Domain=false;Similar Monitored > > External Domain=false;Custom External Domain=false;Mimecast External > > Domain=false;Newly Observed Domain=false;Internal User > > Name=false;Custom Display Name List=false;Reply-to Address > > Mismatch=false;Targeted Threat Dictionary=false;Mimecast Threat > > Dictionary=false;Custom Threat Dictionary=false > > > > I don't know how to understand this... > > But as a result, the series is missing this patch in patchwork. > > I believe it was ignored by Patchwork because of its content-type (application/octet-stream), which indicates that the message contains binary data instead of text: > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-default=true Probably the consequence of some Mimecast mangling. I noticed similar issues in my inbox for some Luca mails on stable@ and some mails from @Intel people on dev@ and even on netdev@. In all cases where From: contains a name != sender, my inbox got the same "content stripped and attached" symptom. On the other hand, those mails end up fine in public mail archives. Looking at headers of publicly archived mails and comparing with what I got, there is an additional trace of Mimecast between dpdk.org server and my inbox. I opened a IT ticket internally. I hope it will get fixed quickly. -- David Marchand