From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CDF378E for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:40:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2017 00:40:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,168,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="65365430" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2017 00:40:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:42:37 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Cc: stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20170216084237.GD20916@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20170215102345.GU23344@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <20170216050303.GA20916@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170216082128.GA23344@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170216082128.GA23344@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] What kind of commits can be backported to help the process X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:40:22 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:21:28AM +0100, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote: > > So to answer your question. The backport should be easy (when one guy > > knows the code enough). If it invovles re-work and changes the behavior > > the commit doesn't have, it basically means it's done wrongly. > > > > That helps? > > Not really, the issue is more related to fixes which have been published > after a re-work of the code, Yes, that may happen. > this re-work may have changed internal > API/ABI, No API/ABI changes are allowed for a stable release. But as far as the fix doesn't offend API/ABI, it's __possible__ to backport. > structures, ... Backporting it becomes like fixing the issue > on totally different code inducing several days of work, tests and > validation. > > Should those fixes be backported? My understanding is, that may depend. If it fixed a fatal bug (say, crash, misfunction, etc), the extra several days of work/validation may be worthwhile. If not, we may skip it. And I think it's only the author (and maintainer) could answer the question whether it's fatal or not. --yliu