Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Fix a vlan bug

["Chen, Jing D" <jing.d.chen@intel.com>]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 11:33 PM
> To: Chen, Jing D
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Fix a vlan bug
> 
> 2014-12-04 14:29, Chen, Jing D:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > 2014-12-04 10:30, Chen, Jing D:
> > > > As I don't know what commit he is based on, I'd like to generate a
> > > > new
> > > patch with latest dpdk repo.
> > >
> > > There's something wrong here. You rework a patch and you don't know
> > > what was the current status but you expect that the reviewers can
> > > understand it better than you?
> >
> > You don't understand me. Please read my above words again.
> 
> Yes there probably is a misunderstanding.
> 
> > As I said, he is in vacation, I came to fix problem. I know exactly what's the
> problem. So, I used simple way.
> 
> So Huawei was trying to fix the bug and you suggest another way to fix it.
> But you didn't explain why your fix is better than the previous one.
> And we don't know if it's the continuation of his work or not.
> If you are trying to fix exactly the same problem, incrementing the version
> number of the patch makes clear that previous version doesn't need to be
> reviewed, reworked or applied. In patchwork language, it supersedes the
> previous patch which won't appear anymore.
> 

OK, I prefer to follow Huawei's patch set and drop my commit.

> > > You are breaking all the elementary rules of patch management.
> >
> > Please kindly list all the elementary rules of patch management, please.
> > If possible, can you post it somewhere so other new guys can find and
> follow?
> 
> They are explained in http://dpdk.org/dev#send.
> That's the ones I've enumerated in my first email:
> - changelog
> - increment version number (v5 here)
> - use --in-reply-to
>

Thanks for explanation. 
 
> > > We have currently 2 fixes pending for the same bug.
> 
> To sum it up, we need:
> 1) a review
> 2) an agreement that the Huawei's fix is superseded by this one
> 
> Thank you
> --
> Thomas
> 
> > > PS: please don't top post.
> >
> > I apologized for top post.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:26 PM
> > > > > To: Chen, Jing D
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Fix a vlan bug
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-12-04 10:18, Qiu, Michael:
> > > > > > Hi Mark,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Huawei (huawei.xie@intel.com) has one patch set to fix
> > > > > > this
> > > issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your patch is totally different with him:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] lib/librte_pmd_i40e: set vlan filter
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > >
> > > > > > please ignore my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But you both calculation are different.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, please Jing (Mark), if you reworked the v4 patch, it would
> > > > > clearer to have a changelog, to name it v5 and to insert it in
> > > > > the previous thread with --in-reply-to.
> > > > > At the moment, both patches block each other.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thomas
> >