From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6322D3F9 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:14:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 06:08:42 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,691,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="496033555" Received: from pgsmsx104.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.91]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 06:04:59 -0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.70) by PGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 22:08:40 +0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.216]) by SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.182]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 22:08:39 +0800 From: "Ouyang, Changchun" To: "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation Thread-Index: AQHQEq9IYZVt6icOSU2o3C0ovIVpDpyGvqHg//+D+ICAAIvy8P//sCCAgADOcDA= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:08:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1418019716-4962-1-git-send-email-changchun.ouyang@intel.com> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286C9DE44@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1941671.RlrZxTondI@xps13> <20141209094658.GA9472@bricha3-MOBL3> In-Reply-To: <20141209094658.GA9472@bricha3-MOBL3> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 14:15:01 -0000 Hi Bruce, > -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:47 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation >=20 > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:40:23AM +0000, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:12 PM > > > To: Ouyang, Changchun > > > Cc: Qiu, Michael; Stephen Hemminger; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio > > > implementation > > > > > > 2014-12-09 05:41, Ouyang, Changchun: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Qiu, Michael > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:23 AM > > > > > To: Ouyang, Changchun; Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > 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 :) > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > It that right? I can't add Stephen into Signed-off-by list even if > > > > I have gotten the agreement from Stephen, What 's the strict rule h= ere? > > > > > > Stephen sent the patches with his Signed-off, then you added yours. > > > This is OK. > > > Using git am, author would have been Stephen. To change author now, > > > you can edit each commit with interactive rebase and "git commit > > > --amend -- author=3DStephen". > > > No need to resend now. Please check it for next version of the patchs= et. > > > > > > > So I understand correctly, Stephen need care for from patches from 1 > > to 16, I need care for the 17th patch from next version. > > What I mean "caring for" above is: debug and validate them and send > > out patches > > > > Thanks > > Changchun > > > Just to clarify Thomas point here about use of "git am". If you get a pat= ch > from someone to test or work on, use "git am" to apply it, rather than "g= it > apply", since "git am" generates a commit in your local repo and thereby > maintains the original authorship of the patch. If you do "git apply" and > subsequently commit yourself, you - rather than the original author - wil= l > appear as the "author" of the patch, and you need to amend the commit as > Thomas suggests to fix this. >=20 > So in short: > * git am =3D=3D good > * git apply =3D=3D bad Thanks very much for the clarification. I will use git am for next version. Changchun