From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD75A0548; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2A6400D7; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCB140042 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1656510316; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hERvpmDEBoT+f9X9bhOMOLFXeYNZwOfeZ5C048VnCYQ=; b=OjXnouRvgef549JF9QNNzm7Xd8LrWeyXdZCblYaPvfJGd9/hmQVGr6EJQMkwvsEJw9mhV2 vQOUFbyXEtBiwYfoj3wiZSqBDQjSMJPyuMu5v9gvAStTcBtNQELroRTzC3f7qIpam6zgCY mTq/6aL6LBZTVXRIEGor6UeYSH40A58= Received: from mail-lj1-f200.google.com (mail-lj1-f200.google.com [209.85.208.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-466-q0ie3ZJoNkKlg_0jsomo-Q-1; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:45:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: q0ie3ZJoNkKlg_0jsomo-Q-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f200.google.com with SMTP id x7-20020a05651c024700b002594efe50f0so2378687ljn.21 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hERvpmDEBoT+f9X9bhOMOLFXeYNZwOfeZ5C048VnCYQ=; b=HPT+Zyj5wCC2cJrNU6ISLYY7dANa5QrW7Z5WmjRIyUR8u1fvaNEXw6PyGq9UPDztBv 1gdgYrZnooNo6giyltcNn1cBOVoApx1lxSFqEuPbNSTKPpAOfNVQaTsXkOpSCWSFbOk1 K0mnfSVxuYU8JsZZwX6nKAC7DeSwLuSiA/gAgLZygxsl2D1VnagrHo+5JD7qp1EyAMiD jCFcUy8TfvwtKEdzxhKlcmZeuaU6/bYdm0El+JlD/57C7KNXZUmBGAt1Ipn9HmKhIG9H x+yBuBOukCbjHRGRv375kwk6MJHyTBYn/BxUNuGEzFmBOd4U5obyFQvJ0H3vdtKusLhj uD9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/8VE0MIQSJljlKeMXhcxPzg9PVLw4z+XI2AwHDivU2Xn7dawXr rXiA86v/1ytGqT7yZJIJWe5wai4gBhbBj0kbYG8+jps6hFSMPwHl2wbjFnDx68MyxVMaHU82DoW XmFftksYcQXaupyfC7cA= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e97:0:b0:47f:b53b:4af5 with SMTP id o23-20020ac24e97000000b0047fb53b4af5mr2113108lfr.499.1656510313526; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s+ufnodBW9EhCxDJfFlKiyogT7f7qzPe782p+J2mSS/z3qbzONk/PJLysiyXVN2HSEV5VpZ+baeCJRun88YUI= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e97:0:b0:47f:b53b:4af5 with SMTP id o23-20020ac24e97000000b0047fb53b4af5mr2113089lfr.499.1656510313250; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220627092728.78214-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220627092728.78214-3-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] vhost: restore device information in log messages To: "Xia, Chenbo" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "Wang, YuanX" , "Ding, Xuan" , "ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com" Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:34 PM Xia, Chenbo wrote: > > Hi David, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Marchand > > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 5:27 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; Xia, Chenbo ; Wang, > > YuanX ; Ding, Xuan > > Subject: [PATCH 2/4] vhost: restore device information in log messages > > > > device information in the log messages was dropped. > > > > Fixes: 52ade97e3641 ("vhost: fix physical address mapping") > > Should we add cc-stable tag in this case as it's 22.03 commit? > Last time when I asked Ferruh, he said although now we don't maintain > non-LTS release, we should still add this tag. Not sure this changed > or not. No objection for leaks and other important fixes. Here, this patch is only fixing some log messages, so I did not see the need. In any case, I am fine with both options and this can be added when the patch is applied by sub-tree maintainer. > > For the patch: > > Reviewed-by: Chenbo Xia Thanks Chenbo! -- David Marchand