Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

I sent the patches to Ouyang with my Signed-off.
He did the testing with current DPDK.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Qiu, Michael <michael.qiu@intel.com> wrote:

> On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM
> >> To: Ouyang, Changchun
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation
> >>
> >> Hi Changchun,
> >>
> >> 2014-12-08 14:21, Ouyang Changchun:
> >>> This patch set bases on two original RFC patch sets from Stephen
> >> Hemminger[stephen@networkplumber.org]
> >>> Refer to [http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-August/004845.html ]
> for
> >> the original one.
> >>> This patch set also resolves some conflict with latest codes and
> removed
> >> duplicated codes.
> >>
> >> As you sent the patches, you appear as the author.
> >> But I guess Stephen should be the author for some of them.
> >> Please check who has contributed the most in each patch to decide.
> > You are right, most of patches originate from Stephen's patchset, except
> for the last one,
> > To be honest, I am ok whoever is the author of this patch set, :-),
> > We could co-own the feature of Single virtio if you all agree with it,
> and I think we couldn't finish
> > Such a feature without collaboration among us, this is why I tried to
> communicate with most of you
> > to collect more feedback, suggestion and comments for this feature.
> > Very appreciate for all kinds of feedback, suggestion here, especially
> for patch set from Stephen.
> >
> > According to your request, how could we make this patch set looks more
> like Stephen as the author?
> > Currently I add Stephen as Signed-off-by list in each patch(I got the
> agreement from Stephen before doing this :-)).
>
> Hi Ouyang,
>
> "Signed-off-by" should be added by himself, because the one who in the
> Signed-off-by list should take responsibility for it(like potential
> bugs/issues).
>
> Although, lots of patches are originate from Stephen, we still need
> himself add this line :)
>
> If DPDK community's Signed-off-by" rule is different from linux(qemu,
> etc.), please ignore my comment :)
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> > Need I send all patchset to Stephen and let Stephen send out them to
> dpdk.org?
> > Or any other better solution?
> > If you has better suggestion, I assume it works for all subsequent RFC
> and normal patch set.
> >
> > Any other suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Changchun
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>