DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)" <xiaobo.chi@nsn.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] add one option memory-only for secondary processes
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:00:22 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2296434.5EpfcH711R@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150122111732.GA4580@bricha3-MOBL3>

2015-01-22 11:17, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:05:34AM +0000, Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> > Hi, Bruce,
> > Since the DPDK2.0 merge window is opened now, so is it possible for this patch to be one candidate for v2.0?
> > I searched in the DPDK patchwork(http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/project/dpdk/list/?state=*&q=memory-only&archive=both ), but can not find this V2 patch. Can you please help to check why? Thanks a lot.
> > 
> > Filters: Search = memory-only  remove filter
> > Patch	 Date	Submitter	Delegate	State
> > [dpdk-dev] add one option memory-only for those secondary PRBs	2014-12-02	chixiaobo		Not Applicable
> > [dpdk-dev] add one option memory-only for those secondary PRBs	2014-12-02	chixiaobo		Changes Requested
> > 
> > Brgs,
> > Chi Xiaobo
> > 
> That's a question that Thomas is better able to answer than me, since he is the
> man with control over patchwork! :-)
> Thomas, any feedback here?

I have no log for this kind of problem.
But I know that patchwork ignores emails with special characters.
And in your commit log, there are some in "mechanism and it?��s upper libs".
Moreover, this commit log should be wrapped.
A quick look shows also that some spaces/tabs are missing.
It was a v2 and there is no change log.
Please submit a v3 after cleaning.

I didn't review this patch and nobody gave its Acked-by.
So at the moment, it's pending. I'll try to review v3 carefully.
Other comments are welcome. I feel this patch can break some important things.
Which tests have you done? (it could be described in commit log)

Last point: I don't like the current implementation of secondary process
and Ericsson wanted to discuss their own implementation:


      reply	other threads:[~2015-01-22 13:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-03 10:11 chixiaobo
2014-12-03 10:53 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2014-12-04  7:21   ` Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)
2014-12-11  3:02     ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2014-12-15  9:57       ` Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)
2014-12-16  9:26       ` Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)
2014-12-16 10:03         ` Bruce Richardson
2015-01-22  9:05           ` Chi, Xiaobo (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)
2015-01-22 11:17             ` Bruce Richardson
2015-01-22 13:00               ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2296434.5EpfcH711R@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=xiaobo.chi@nsn.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).