From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6C06CD1 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:23:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2016 03:23:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,333,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="771708107" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2016 03:23:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:24:42 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Christian Ehrhardt Cc: stable@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20161012102442.GJ16751@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] Reviewing currently queued patches X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:23:50 -0000 On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > Hi Yliu, > > First of all thanks for your work on the stable Tree! > > I usually flag patches that come by and I find interesting for backporting for > myself. I also did some flags, but it's hard to be complete. The way I do it now is to look all commits in the master branch, and pick some that looks good to be picked for stable release. I would hope more and more people would add "Cc: " inside the commit log in future. With that, most of them could be automated by some simple. scripts. It's just a first trial, a lot people are still not aware of that. But I'm sure we will get better and better as time move forwards. > Since the "new" stable-tree was announced I replied on some of those threads to > stable@dpdk.org to be considered. I did not at all try to have a complete list, > but wanted to track the few I had. Thanks for doing that! Yes, I could be mistaken somewhere. It would be great if you could spend some time to some more checkings. Appreciate that! > Since your mails today appeared to me to be the complete list of your first > batch of stable patches I checked it vs my list. Yes, that should be final list for the first stable release. And I plan to make a review-announce this Friday, for aksing reviews and testing. After that, v16.07.1 will be released. > That way I found a few that I > wanted to inquire about. > > The first category are patches that likely are already considered by you. > Those patches already got the "this is enqueued for stable" reply onto their > patch submission mail thread. But the deadline you set back then expired and > they are not yet in the stable tree so I at least wanted to ask. My bad, and apologize again that I was late. I was on vacation. I pushed them after the vacation. You can find them here: http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/log/?h=16.07 For this round, I'm sure I will do it in time: before the end of this Friday. > > 24427bb914a6375f29635897d23a3192d85b2127 app/testpmd: fix crash when mempool > allocation fails > e15922d75a8226a0a5af97d39a9f15a2e6163e9d mempool: fix corruption due to invalid > handler They are there; already pushed. > > The second type are fixes that have a "fixes" statement matching code that is > in 16.07 and might be missing in your current list: > c00ae961ff8dbc036322fdb41137a7dedac005c9 mem: fix crash on hugepage mapping > error > 6edfa69ba6fe86e9f59c76d0bb3732c558aeedc9 pci: fix memory leak when detaching > device > 7b3c4f351708a4bf5d311266d9f8c32e5704701f sched: fix releasing enqueued packets > 33a290899dd2b6e2e26e8e5c33d08979f8315d18 net/virtio_user: fix first queue pair > without multiqueue Besides the the 3rd one (sched: fix releasing ...), all others are actually included in this list I sent out today. You failed to get those mail notifications? FYI, I got them. BTW, thanks for the good catch! I will include the missing one soon. --yliu > It would be nice if you could let us know if they are intentionally not > included, just not processed yet or whatever else that had not made them part > of your batch submission today. > > To some extend that was why I asked before for a list of "intentionally not > included fixes along with the reason", but for now the diff is small enough > that you can just reply here on those 4 (6) patches. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Christian Ehrhardt > Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server > Canonical Ltd