From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D048052 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:24:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r5so4671109qcx.13 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:24:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D+8y1vutFmq8NyzG0F+t9RpnN1h72IuTD1oZVxZxvJk=; b=NGVLJ5TUjbyJtY1NzN1Qdp+qzHT/MNkOZOpsZPYXO2RzV24Vc26P3l5Of3lURgJeEx bQWZv4V3ND1tkEBrmTpuxaRk09YtA5Q+KDiXbwdJhLjFPrwRB/evF8i9rwPgYdmNUgOu Agh0Fl4tJQb8HCu+sbEgRecYkd5m/OenCRwLW2uCAukVe4AEDVwDxYN7DvsRh5YUqaL1 WMYF9P+WwijJTYQ8FpxCK2CzoBd3EJKJ3OdBFw4o4sGfocaQbMATrcjPUjXcNABPjVrG YcYgaW32oP6SsGI53Rn9qTr3V6DdrXNDQHtt9N2LEfI75RQE8B5Hee4P79zpiHgS+jBv 2FRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmosbyW8L875d6BjoryjUZGQ0wX3hQCLeeq+67sO/4jDyh8oSu1e7Or0jVT68bBcgiDfwxi MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.43.133 with SMTP id e5mr2114036qga.10.1418102664588; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:24:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.16.19 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:24:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286C9DE44@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1418019716-4962-1-git-send-email-changchun.ouyang@intel.com> <4047137.blhnCyLAqS@xps13> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286C9DE44@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:24:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Qiu, Michael" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 05:24:25 -0000 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 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 > > > > > > > > > >