On Thu, 5 May 2022 19:29:54 +0200
Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> wrote:
> The lpm_process_event_pkt() can either process a packet using an
> architecture specific (defined for X86/SSE, ARM/Neon and PPC64/Altivec)
> path or a scalar one. The choice is however done using an ifdef
> pre-processor macro. Because of that the scalar version was apparently
> not widely excersized/compiled.
> Due to some copy/paste errors, the scalar logic in
> lpm_process_event_pkt() retained a "continue" statement where a BAD_PORT
> should be returned after refactoring of the LPM logic in the l3fwd
> example.
>
> Fixes: 99fc91d18082 ("examples/l3fwd: add event lpm main loop")
> Cc: pbhagavatula@marvell.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com>
> Sponsored-by: Frank Zhao <Frank.Zhao@starfivetech.com>
> Sponsored-by: Sam Grove <sam.grove@sifive.com>
Would be easier to get merged if bug fixes came as separate patch
submission.
Sure, I can post this separately. The reason for posting this along with RISC-V patches is that those depend on this one. So I could add "depends-on" but wanted be on the safe side.
Also have not seen Sponsored-by before; what do you expect it to mean?
Never used in DPDK or kernel git tree.
The idea is that this work was sponsored by the companies mentioned in the sign-off. It is used i.e. in FreeBSD though admittedly never in Linux or DPDK.
Alternative, which makes checkpatch happy and was previously used is "Suggested-by". However suggestion, doesn't necessary mean sponsorship.
I had a talk about this with Thomas Monjalon and he has also leaned towards "Sponsored-by".
I'm open to suggestions as I admit, I'm not sure which route is better.