Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] crypto/dpaa2_sec: fix the return of supported API

[Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 05:32:44PM +0000, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2] crypto/dpaa2_sec: fix the return of supported
> > > > > API
> > > > >
> > > > > call to dpaa2_sec_dev_configure() is made mandatory, but
> > > > > dpaa2_sec_pmd returns a ENOTSUP which results in device not
> > > > > getting
> > > configured.
> > > > >
> > > > > dpaa2_sec PMD does not need any further configuration to be done
> > > > > in dpaa2_sec_dev_configure, hence returning 0
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: e5cbdfc53765 ("crypto/dpaa2_sec: add basic operations")
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > Looks ok to me, but this is only applicable in the stable branch, so
> > > > no need to send it to dev@dpdk.org.
> > >
> > > Why? We already have such fix in upstream? Normally, we just pick
> > > upstream commits (but not patches: the emails) to stable release.
> > 
> > It looks like this fix was included in
> > 13273250eec5 ("crypto/dpaa2_sec: support AES-GCM and CTR").
> > Unfortunately, this patch should have been split into two different patches.
> > Since this has already been merged, I think our only way to integrate this In
> > 17.05.1 is by getting it separately.
> 
> In general, there may be other incidents, where a patch is only applicable for the stable tree. It may not be applicable for upstream tree due to architecture changes or other reasons.
> How do you want to handle such patches? 
> 
> e.g. in OVS, we can do it by marking the patch header with "[branch-2.6]"


Yes, you are right, it might happen. Then you need cook a standalone
patch and send it to stable ml only. Since I don't usually pick stable
patches directly from stable ML, you probably need add some marks in
the commit log. Something like "this is for stable tree only and add
a bit explanation".

Normally, every time I saw a patch sent only to stable ML I will ask
the same question I have asked in this email. But I could just miss
it. So you are suggested to do above.

For this case, just as Pablo said, the patch should be split in the
beginning, then only the (small) bug fixing patch will be picked to a
specific stable release. And since it already happened, you could just
send it to stable ML only, and better, with me cc-ed.

Thanks.

	--yliu