From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3B19E3 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:05:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2017 02:05:10 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,387,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="254538068" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2017 02:05:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:01:30 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20170428090130.GZ11512@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1493364114-7771-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1679460.mJD8jeqIBn@xps> <20170428082706.GY11512@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <4676086.N97G0cgc3q@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4676086.N97G0cgc3q@xps> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: list stable commits do not have fixline X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:05:12 -0000 On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 28/04/2017 10:27, Yuanhan Liu: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:15:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 28/04/2017 09:21, Yuanhan Liu: > > > > Some commits for stable releases (with Cc stable tag) may not have the > > > > fixline. For example: > > > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/23955/ > > > > > > > > It disables a feature we have implemented in last release. The feature > > > > is done right. It's the QEMU implementaton being buggy, that we have to > > > > disable it to workaround those buggy QEMU releases (v2.7 - v2.9). Without > > > > such workaround, QEMU won't start when queue number >= 2. > > > > > > > > That said, we also have to backport it to stable releases, though there > > > > is no fixline (there was no DPDK bug to fix after all). > > > > > > How do we know where should it be backported? > > > > Good question. As a stable maintainer, I may not know. But the developer > > should know. For such case, he may add something like: > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org # for v17.02+ > > It breaks backport semi-automation. But it should be (easily) fixed. > > It's a trick used widely in kernel and QEMU community. > > > > > It is fixing a bug with a correct implementation because of > > > a buggy dependency. But it is still a bug. > > > So I think we should put a Fixes: line. > > > > I don't have strong objection to this. It just doesn't make too much > > sense to me: there is no bug in the DPDK implementation after all. > > > > But if you insist, I'm okay with it. > > Yes I insist :) > It is fixing code to work with some dependencies. Okay. Besides, okay to merge this patch? As you stated, it does no harm. --yliu