From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <doucette@bu.edu> Received: from relay74.bu.edu (relay74.bu.edu [128.197.228.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41D210A3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:21:59 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: doucette@bu.edu Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay74.bu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id w9VEKxdL005690 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:21:00 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id h184-v6so12692441wmf.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EkkMR06U1GIZNss4LPBSmWq+dBnZgfSWrSuDccW3mJM=; b=IPIoKDr+99xBOcSihTOfkcdXOyux1PKmMb7nDof+NqppczO2jDuf8LF1aQDFuZUdkC RmZstdWatjkIyk8UL9YnqQznumtruzh6f0wXHLb8jhSbac0BZxJNliWoWxckrsMF8cOd b+xmtOxGW1D40ouHRLxBX+cdnZMo0U4LyFyWKY0O14YoBfXg2DbsvaHHBHzfeItu+qLw gOMHOQ2hYeNHfG6chWIvTJZtCJzxCtnxm3Pc+Tr/SlCrTXvWdXOgQfAC/AXrJcKvgI2x pvODKwguN+GeJ1vhNfhxopt0V6DIwmXDZ8qcOIWZlAdRJ26s8BKUODtA9aYwpAvGH5G1 ByQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKdNQ7zZzSfQ5K2xxDge+HYdew/xHcMqmrT4H2yX3PJP+NJTZhS SAiS+EG4WrUvknDo2+10UaipYDxgdMtHB2J2KItV+qd8Rk5+vSNvAnOpCyL6pITznqngPfbn331 WRa8ArmVPc4ZHf8+KFaK+ X-Received: by 2002:a1c:34d2:: with SMTP id b201-v6mr2490722wma.115.1540995659272; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fjAFtzCQ5T2ENOqSYEbvX7u3As+stfHyn0fg19UDwpDees+U9pj0A4izqSeSWPwYW+IAEsU5jA5X60nwedSkI= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:34d2:: with SMTP id b201-v6mr2490689wma.115.1540995658706; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180727135243.147744-1-doucette@bu.edu> <9635910.y5ZcffoGi6@xps> <CAJjX64Ypv7qxNWRg2NnGtj7YsJt9Xa52V2-oXf2xBAQ2MD60mA@mail.gmail.com> <4226978.aJZGOXQQx2@xps> <20181031092734.GA19179@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20181031092734.GA19179@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> From: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:20:46 -0400 Message-ID: <CAJjX64Z5uCgPQPuSUMhKUM29ZrjvZHek2XyiPKEwrrrzSjOtuw@mail.gmail.com> To: nhorman@tuxdriver.com Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, "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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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 14:22:00 -0000 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. 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >