RE: [PATCH v5 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code

["Li, Xiaoyun" <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 21:53
> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>; Guo, Junfeng
> <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>;
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; awogbemila@google.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Lin, Xueqin <xueqin.lin@intel.com>; Wang,
> Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code
> 
> On 10/19/2022 4:48 PM, Li, Xiaoyun wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 14:45
> >> To: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> >> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Hemant
> >> Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> >> <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>;
> >> awogbemila@google.com; Richardson, Bruce
> >> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Lin, Xueqin <xueqin.lin@intel.com>;
> >> Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code
> >>
> >> On 10/10/2022 11:17 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
> >>> The following base code is based on Google Virtual Ethernet (gve)
> >>> driver v1.3.0 under MIT license.
> >>> - gve_adminq.c
> >>> - gve_adminq.h
> >>> - gve_desc.h
> >>> - gve_desc_dqo.h
> >>> - gve_register.h
> >>> - gve.h
> >>>
> >>> The original code is in:
> >>> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-virtual-ethernet-
> linu
> >>> x/
> >>> \
> >>> tree/v1.3.0/google/gve
> >>>
> >>> Note that these code are not Intel files and they come from the
> >>> kernel community. The base code there has the statement of
> >>> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT). Here we just follow the
> >>> required MIT license as an exception to DPDK.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h
> >>> new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..1b0d59b639
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> >>> + * Google Virtual Ethernet (gve) driver
> >>> + * Version: 1.3.0
> >>
> >> There is a version macro in the code, is version information required
> >> in the file comment?
> >
> > Different versions of gve kernel driver change a lot. So for reference, I
> think adding the version info for the base code makes sense. Just tell the
> following update people which version is used.
> >
> 
> No problem to add version to base code, it is already in the code as macro:
> 
>   #define GVE_VERSION		"1.3.0"
>   #define GVE_VERSION_PREFIX	"GVE-"
> 
> My question is if to have is in the *file comment* or not, for it is duplicate
> and another thing to maintain (I won't get surprised in the future someone
> update the macro but not file comment).

Forgot about this one. Then it's better to remove it from copyright place then. @Guo, Junfeng
> 
> >>
> >>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2022 Google, Inc.
> >>> + * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation
> >>
> >> I don't know if it is OK to add Intel copyright, as far as I know
> >> this requires big enough contribution to the code, if this is copy of
> >> existing code, may be only original copyright should exist.
> >
> > It's not just directly copy. Directly copy like gve_desc.h doesn't have Intel
> copyright.
> > But gve.h, in gve kernel driver, it has a lot of info dpdk doesn't need or
> dpdk has its own version like txq/rxq info.
> > I'm not sure the contribution is a lot or not. But I suppose this patchset is
> following the principle that if the code is changed, intel copy right is added,
> otherwise, only google's copyright.
> >
> 
> Thanks Xiaoyun confirming it is not direct copy, can someone in your end
> check Intel's addition to the file, and if it justifies Copyright or not?

@Guo, Junfeng Can you update this? I think you can ask Qi's opinion.
If people want to keep the copyright, add one short sentence under copyright to explain what's changed.

In my opinion, there're many changes but those changes are only for adapting kernel code to DPDK.
I'm not sure that counts a lot or not and I think Intel's copyright can be removed for the base code.
Afterall, Intel's main contribution is ethdev part and dpdk datapath.

> 
> >>
> >> cc'ed @Hemant and @Stephen for more comment.