From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yang, Yi" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10] openvswitch: enable NSH support Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:52:41 +0800 Message-ID: <20170926135240.GA88616@cran64.bj.intel.com> References: <1506401236-5716-1-git-send-email-yi.y.yang@intel.com> <20170926130534.170270e3@griffin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org" , "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "e@erig.me" , "davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org" To: Jiri Benc Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170926130534.170270e3@griffin> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ovs-dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: ovs-dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:05:34PM +0800, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:47:16 +0800, Yi Yang wrote: > > + return ((ret != 0) ? false : true); Jiri, I appriciate your review very carefully and professionally from my heart for 10 versions, that is really very very big effort. I carefully thought this comment: """ > + return ((ret != 0) ? false : true); Too little coffee or too late in the night, right? ;-) """ But I don't think this is a problematic line from my understanding, because validate_nsh is declared to return bool. I had thought you were saying "it was late, it was time for you to leave office, so no more comments", this is my readout :-) So the best comment you can give out here is one line you prefer :-) I'm not a kernel developer full time, I'm adapting to several coding style at the time in kernel, OVS and Opendaylight. > > I'm not going to review this version but this caught my eye - I pointed > out this silly construct in my review of v9. I can understand that > working late in the night and rewriting the code back and forth, one > could end up with such construct and overlook it at the final > self-review before submission. Happens to everyone. > > But leaving this after a review pointed it out means you're not paying > enough attention to your work. Even the fact that you sent v10 so > shortly after v9 means you did not spend the needed time on reflecting > on the review and that you did not properly test the new version. And > I told you exactly this before. > > Honestly, I'm starting to be tired with reviewing your patch again and > again and pointing out silly mistakes like this one and repeating basic > things to you again and again. I did test it in my sfc test environment, I don't see any warning, error during build and runtime, it can work well. Sorry if missing your comments, that is understanding issue in most cases but not I don't take your comments seriously. You know English isn't my native language, it is a big challenge for me to understand your comments very well. Neverthless, code is our common language, I can understand code better than your descriptive words :-) > > Jiri