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

["Ouyang, Changchun" <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>]

Hi Michael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiu, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:03 AM
> To: Ouyang, Changchun; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation
> 
> On 2014/12/9 22:19, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >> 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
> here?
> >>>> 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=Stephen".
> >>>> No need to resend now. Please check it for next version of the
> patchset.
> >>>>
> >>> 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
> >> patch from someone to test or work on, use "git am" to apply it,
> >> rather than "git 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 - will appear as the "author" of the
> >> patch, and you need to amend the commit as Thomas suggests to fix this.
> >>
> >> So in short:
> >> * git am == good
> >> * git apply == bad
> > Thanks very much for the clarification. I will use git am for next version.
> 
> BTW, you also can use "git am ./xx/*" to patch a series patch set to your local
> git tree.

Ok,  thanks for sharing.
 
Thanks and regards,,
Changchun