Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] add Intel DCF PMD support

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

10/03/2020 03:00, Wang, Haiyue:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 03:34
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Ye, Xiaolong
> > <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> > Cc: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Yang,
> > Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>;
> > Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>; ci@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] add Intel DCF PMD support
> > 
> > On 09/03/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 09/03/2020 17:20, Ye Xiaolong:
> > >> Hi, David
> > >>
> > >> On 03/09, David Marchand wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@intel.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A DCF (Device Config Function) based approach is proposed where a device
> > >>>> bound to the device's VF0 can act as a sole controlling entity to exercise
> > >>>> advance functionality (such as switch, ACL) for rest of the VFs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The DCF works as a standalone PMD to support this function, which shares the
> > >>>> ice PMD flow control core function and the iavf virtchnl mailbox core module.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This patchset is based on:
> > >>>> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/cover/66417/ update ice base code
> > >>>
> > >>> The problem is that the CI(s) won't handle this.
> > >>> Example for the robot: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/builds/152461907
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe we could add something as an annotation to the cover letter or
> > >>> the first patch of a series so that the CI(s) can detect and try to be
> > >>> intelligent?
> > >>
> > >> Agree, It'd be helpful if the cover letter of the first patch contains some
> > >> base tree info including the base commit and dependency patchset info (if any),
> > >> so the CI can determine the correct base on top of which the developer's
> > >> patchset applies to avoid any apply issue and potential false positive.
> > >>
> > >> And I know there is one option '--base'' of `git format-patch` which is
> > >> dedicated for this kind of usage, it can help create the base tree info block
> > >> which can be easily consumed by the CI. Here is the simple intro of it.
> > >>
> > >> Imagine that on top of the public commit P (already in upstream), the developer
> > >> applied well-known (on-flight, in the mailing list but not merged yet) patches
> > >> X, Y and Z from somebody else or himself, and then built his three-patch series
> > >> A, B, C, the commit history would be like:
> > >>
> > >> ................................................
> > >> ---P---X---Y---Z---A---B---C
> > >> ................................................
> > >>
> > >> With `git format-patch --base=P -3 C`,
> > >>
> > >> where P could be the exact commit sha, or variants e.g. HEAD~6, we can also use
> > >> --base=auto for convenience, the base tree information block will be shown at
> > >> the end of the first message the command outputs (either the first patch, or
> > >> the cover letter), like this:
> > >>
> > >> ------------
> > >> base-commit: P
> > >> prerequisite-patch-id: X
> > >> prerequisite-patch-id: Y
> > >> prerequisite-patch-id: Z
> > >> ------------
> > >>
> > >> Here P is the commit sha, and X,Y,Z are the patch ids of the dependency patches.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> With this info in place, I think CI should be able to setup the exact base for
> > >> the coming patchset, the missing part I can see is the mapping of
> > >> (in-flight patch <-> patch id), since we have all the in-flight patches in
> > >> patchwork, creating and maintaining such mapping in DB is doable, what do you
> > >> think?
> > >
> > > I think it would simpler to list dependencies as patchwork ids.
> > > Example:
> > > 	Depends-on: series-42, patch-12345
> > >
> > 
> 
> Just list the 'series' ? Since it can download the whole patchset with
> the single link format like:
> 
> Depends-on: series-8843  --> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/series/8843/mbox/

Yes, I was proposing both format: series-X and patch-Y (on top of series-X).
But we probably never need to be specific about a single patch.
I think you are right, we can keep only "series-X" syntax,
and allow describing a list of series, ordered and separated with comma.