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

[Qiu, Michael]

On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM
>> To: Ouyang, Changchun
>> Cc: dev at 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 at 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
>
>
>
>