From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB117B62
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:08:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A1F220E3;
 Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:08:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
 bh=HnMZsflGXhC/ki0LHjma4XyTr3HPRwkFQtpqE0oW2j8=; b=JdPuChuG7fut
 rPKMbkIiu0w5M588L0bqsQtBf43r2JfxgzOeZZJ03GfC41a51dYbBMEthQSSxCio
 /v7zyBrjaMNFa0n8ie0A75SLYtPkdz2R5xMQz1qVbmyx4vL6/YtWSdH7tkS6hlbj
 GD97fDvrTzplYTaovGW56GpmlIh4FMY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=HnMZsflGXhC/ki0LHjma4XyTr3HPRwkFQtpqE0oW2
 j8=; b=GpNA6jgrDnjEfjdmiTzBGaXCMaH99j7Xt1UZx5zu09XD4HylxQaWBNPU5
 AQw8goXZSFLJqk0/tUy8a47iIfqntesxSvwuoI6TbW+IoHjsXm3NjBPTfOvmC74V
 jh3a11G0dPrYbWASRD0Fwxal4a//GuJTOQJW8cmhwfYp6n/tMOkZFpORBtb/k+XA
 Iv80Dam4duYK8KWCQO6cB06XSoKmcnVH18wbXcgmkNliOXr3rMH73xvk+7lhMRjX
 SlmUoM0iRaPdV7axQBcBNuMQ/Lbumf4XACs0MiEUV5606F6epK+PPXohMrN75hmo
 RZsij8Gun5A77V+pBW24ixpVh3SpQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:XcXZW8gfAKi9NYnAAZGkHDZBpmT7bS3_cxNmr8w3K32MpXSeKMh7Yw>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:XcXZWy0Kqmzpkyylqzu8MpXpowQIL4ZaTaI-H00OUh3lAg8krI83Bg>
 <xmx:XcXZW1S5T6Wnx_nUNfnMIysyPbVfHjhCv0JUbgz4yTriekFcMm0P8Q>
 <xmx:XcXZW8upvdxE6kj9dL2CT-8dZpWDp5RxlvwjB7JRSjwRd_urvab-Ow>
 <xmx:XcXZWyYrON7rSS8oW6kJxmkk_WQHV_B2jG7QpvFfrutOVRT32SHrfw>
 <xmx:XcXZW5tuTm0IkXoZnvj_ngOSwPuHChYBuVM5jGiXWneGHETFw2gKPA>
 <xmx:X8XZW94PmzUeY4WQ8hpSn-RE9dnPlraoY_pEIVn8HPXec87cMZkCNw>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2FC8FE4430;
 Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
 Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>, "Fu, Qiaobin" <qiaobinf@bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:08:18 +0100
Message-ID: <9016909.uyicx2EDCj@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20181031150330.GA14228@neilslaptop.think-freely.org>
References: <20180727135243.147744-1-doucette@bu.edu>
 <CAJjX64Z5uCgPQPuSUMhKUM29ZrjvZHek2XyiPKEwrrrzSjOtuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181031150330.GA14228@neilslaptop.think-freely.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] ip_frag: extend
	rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header()
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:08:16 -0000

31/10/2018 16:03, Neil Horman:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:20:46AM -0400, Cody Doucette wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like
> > 49bcce138374458d1edd1c50d8e5726959108ef4 is already in my tree. I tried
> > applying and checking again anyway and it seems that the error is still
> > present.
> > 
> Thats not a commit in the upstream tree, I've no idea what patch you are referring to

Yes it is in the tree, in 18.11-rc1.


> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:28 AM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:12:27AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 30/10/2018 19:09, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > OK, I will send three separate patches plus a cover letter.
> > > > >
> > > > > I seem to be having trouble with checkpatch complaining that new
> > > symbols
> > > > > are not inserted into the EXPERIMENTAL section of the .map file:
> > > > >
> > > > > ERROR: symbol break is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol const is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol &frag_hdr_buf) is added in a section other than the
> > > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> > > > > INFO: symbol frag_hdr is being removed, ensure that it has gone
> > > > > through the deprecation process
> > > > > INFO: symbol  is added but patch has insuficient context to determine
> > > > > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > ERROR: symbol offset, is added in a section other than the
> > > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol offset is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > INFO: symbol  is added but patch has insuficient context to determine
> > > > > the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > ERROR: symbol sizeof(*frag_hdr), is added in a section other than the
> > > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol size_t is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > INFO: symbol struct is being removed, ensure that it has gone through
> > > > > the deprecation process
> > > > > ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> > > > > section of the version map
> > > > > ERROR: symbol uint8_t is added in a section other than the
> > > > > EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> > > > >
> > > > > Even when moving the new symbol into the EXPERIMENTAL version and
> > > > > recreating the patch, checkpatch still issues the same errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I leave the .map file as it is in v3? If not, any suggestions on
> > > what
> > > > > checkpatch is looking for me to do here?
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry, it is a bug in the script.
> > > > +Cc Neil who already looked at this issue.
> > > >
> > > I need to look at the submitted patch to confirm, which I don't have time
> > > to do
> > > at this moment, but my first though is that yes, this is fixed by recent
> > > commit
> > > 49bcce138374458d1edd1c50d8e5726959108ef4.  Can you try applying and
> > > building to
> > > the current head and see if the issue is resolved?
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:36 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 30/10/2018 10:46, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > > > > > > 28/10/2018 21:54, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM Thomas Monjalon <
> > > thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 27/07/2018 15:52, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > > > > > > > Extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header() to skip
> > > over any
> > > > > > > > > > > other IPv6 extension headers when finding the fragment
> > > header.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > According to RFC 8200, there is no guarantee that the IPv6
> > > > > > > > > > > Fragment extension header will come before any other
> > > extension
> > > > > > > > > > > header, even though it is recommended.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qiaobin Fu <qiaobinf@bu.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > v3:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Removed compilation flag D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 from the
> > > > > > > > > > >   failsafe driver to allow compilation on freebsd.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How failsafe is related to ip_frag?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Moved IPv6 extension header definitions to lib_net.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/Makefile               |  1 -
> > > > > > > > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/meson.build            |  1 -
> > > > > > > > > > >  examples/ip_reassembly/main.c               |  6 ++--
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag.h            | 23
> > > ++++++-------
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag_version.map  |  1 +
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 38
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_reassembly.c    |  4 +--
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h                     | 27
> > > +++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > >  lib/librte_port/rte_port_ras.c              |  6 ++--
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes in failsafe, rte_net and rte_port look like garbage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, the ip_frag part requires some review.
> > > > > > > > > > +Cc Konstantin, the maintainer.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Garbage in what sense? I would be happy to amend with a little
> > > more
> > > > > > > > > information.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The changes to failsafe and rte_net were from previous reviews
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-June/106023.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108701.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > After a better look, the change in rte_port is fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the changes in failsafe and rte_net would be better in their
> > > own
> > > > > > patch.
> > > > > > > > You can have 3 patches in a patchset (with a cover letter to
> > > explain
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > global idea).
> > > > > > > > Then, failsafe and rte_net changes must be reviewed by their
> > > > > > maintainers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The patch looks good to me.
> > > > > > > About failsafe changes - the reason for that was that failsafe
> > > driver
> > > > > > didn't build
> > > > > > > properly with the proposed changes.
> > > > > > > Gaetan was ok to remove that extra compiler flag:
> > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108826.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. Please send the failsafe patch as the first of the series.
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>