Re: [spp] [spp 02181] Re: [PATCH 4/9] spp_vf: add BSD license

[Yasufumi Ogawa <ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

On 2018/02/16 23:40, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/16/2018 9:01 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>> On 2018/02/15 19:22, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2018 7:16 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>>>> On 2018/02/09 12:03, Nakamura Hioryuki wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for reviewing and pointing out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Revised patches are posted in the following emails.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also DPDK is switching to SPDX tags, that makes license headers easy, we can
>>>>>> think about same thing for spp. Not for this patchset, but for future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, Thank you for information.
>>>>> "spp_vf: add BSD license" is deleted from revised patchset, we will make
>>>>> change license header for future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, "[PATCH 8/9] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding style" is
>>>>> deleted, because this will conflict with Yasufumi’s patch
>>>>> "[PATCH 2/2] spp_vf: update to improve usability"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hiroyuki, Ferruh
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for comments for licensing. I did not be aware switching SPDX.
>>>> I think we should add this topic in next TODOs.
>>>>
>>>> Hiroyuki, thanks for contribution. However, I think it is not needed to
>>>> revise license only for spp_vf at this time. We should revise all of spp.
>>>>
>>>> Ferruh, If you find Hiroyuki's reply after merged previous patches,
>>>> could you do not re-merge revised patches to avoid to waste your time? I
>>>> would like to update all of files and send another patches later.
>>>
>>> Hi Yasufumi,
>>>
>>> Sure, I will wait for your patchset.
>>>
>>> btw, DPDK v18.02 is out now and available for testing with spp.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ferruh
>>
>> Thanks Ferruh! I will try SPP with latest DPDK v18.02!
>>
>> Before update the version of SPP, I would like to merge patches from
>> Kentaro and me. Could you check and merge it ?
>>
>> Kentaro sent 9 patches
>> [spp] [PATCH 1/9] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding rule
>> ...
>> [spp] [PATCH 9/9] spp_vf: change log level setting
> 
> I believe a new version of this series sent, a set with 7 patches [1].
> Missing version information in the patchset and missing patchwork support makes
> it hard to trace.
Hi Ferruh,

I did not think of patchwork. I think it is good idea if SPP can use 
patchwork for patch management.

Although I am not sure if it is possible to use patchwork on dpdk.org, 
do you have any idea for using it for SPP, or allowed only for 'dev'?

Thanks,
Yasufumi

> 
> [1]
> [PATCH 1/7] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding rule
> [PATCH 2/7] spp_vf: refactor comments and variable names
> [PATCH 3/7] spp_vf: change header file to doxygen format
> [PATCH 4/7] spp_vf: add VLAN tag operate function to port
> [PATCH 5/7] spp_vf: refactor struct and variable names
> [PATCH 6/7] spp_vf: add VID classification to the classifier
> [PATCH 7/7] spp_vf: change log level setting
> 
> 
>>
>> and I sent 5 patches.
>> [spp] [PATCH 1/3] spp_nfv: enable to patch ports with resource ID
>> [spp] [PATCH 2/3] spp: add validation for patch command
>> [spp] [PATCH 3/3] spp_vm: enable to patch ports with resource ID
>> [spp] [PATCH 1/2] spp: update to improve usability
>> [spp] [PATCH 2/2] spp_vf: update to improve usability
> 
> Sure I will get these.
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yasufumi
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yasufumi
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Yasufumi Ogawa
NTT Network Service Systems Labs