From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.148]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1BE1B1A1 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:11:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.154]) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w1M8BZBp007255; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:11:35 +0900 Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D450D63901A; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:11:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.134]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF768638EF3; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:11:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (watercress.nslab.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.13.73]) by jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB019400284; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:11:35 +0900 (JST) References: <201802080556.w185uBLt011286@imss03.silk.ntt-tx.co.jp> <62f1b786-d541-bd82-4618-4e192f088ddc@intel.com> <201802090303.w1933nd3014061@ccmail03.silk.ntt-tx.co.jp> <559c62e1-425f-8a9d-5395-c067ef0453e3@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4b69b78a-832a-35a0-b82e-932ec49e5629@lab.ntt.co.jp> From: Yasufumi Ogawa Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:10:19 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CC-Mail-RelayStamp: 1 To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Nakamura Hioryuki , spp@dpdk.org X-TM-AS-MML: disable Subject: Re: [spp] [spp 02181] Re: [PATCH 4/9] spp_vf: add BSD license X-BeenThere: spp@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Soft Patch Panel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:11:39 -0000 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