Re: [PATCH 1/2] examples/tep_term: fix offload on VXLAN failure

["Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:36 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Yuanhan Liu
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/tep_term: fix offload on
> VXLAN failure
> 
> 2016-09-12 08:42, Tan, Jianfeng:
> > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> > > FYI, my testrobot caught some errors when this patch is applied.
> >
> > It's because this patch set has dependency on a previous patch set, which
> seems a difficult scenario to handle. There's no standard to state the
> dependency, right?
> 
> No there is no standard to state the dependency.
> We need one. Actually, there are 3 kinds of dependencies:
> 	- a well know dependency when sending a patch
> 	- implicit dependency on the HEAD
> 	(can fail if a conflicting patch is pushed)
> 	- dependency on a specific tree (next-*)
> 
> I suggest using:
> 	Depends-on: pw <patchwork-id-of-the-patch>|<tree> <hash>
> Examples:
> 	Depends-on: pw 33000
> 	Depends-on: master 3643b0f
> 	Depends-on: next-net f33e00
> 
> It won't work well when a patch depends on a pending patch series
> because the cover letter has no patchwork identifier.
> It will be solved with the next version of patchwork (in few months).
> In the meantime, we can point to the first patch of the series.
> 
> Comments/ideas?

I think it's a great idea which can make the work of auto tools much more easier and less false positive errors. Besides, it will improve the experience of code review.

Thanks,
Jianfeng