From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED258108F for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:17:28 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id f73so32380121wmf.1 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T95SU8PjzXzKvUWaiDuyHxUaSFvh+YimmCGuQ9l/y3I=; b=NP0uYUc3AdVYLlcHuLDPeNODwq8HAO8v0lULuT7hA6W5ARiWx7YEcV/CcIPkNkdSuP /DdV6+BR5TH4gIrkYW0Z6BUB5nJGRSzCHkQoE/aWOKfGQDVQ8+feBVvhelf+GoyL2FAh 3DAe0Id3l5hRdTiayRijcaaDohAbgJ+VFfRO69YwO6AiQP6kLNZ/NvnB8CSHA7spRybM pVnlLQa149EOhSwluAuqwAUC7ROxXQvpJtOzI+ajbfj+ezRhmltIKguamWU1WHfjKeAr xvcGu+AajsaqcvAqbsTMhlxw7RAR2CtuZpm9M5kavf3+Zwi/Hh1zEmO723SrBjsdc4Rd eJ2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T95SU8PjzXzKvUWaiDuyHxUaSFvh+YimmCGuQ9l/y3I=; b=cW1kvZ3F4u0ub6wGpBw+Ab3jwQZHIZzNmGYE8noSocldSyAR8e1y/j0VJxe+ufDcOt hjKS0DFHKYiCj4L3Jx2wUAGVh3p4U6YbHlII3/UfrXdL2+yNnWaHFipYl2pWPAudRFiF Wttzc7UErnBAyrw92Py9iWGCY+HmjXY2pddKUTMer48+Y2VXTiiCowht7XG7ytCBw/Qo HMpdyvtkV9N12Cq/z/bgxpFAf052GU9Op3vFN2aCYy0HHzpoFSSfceiFx1+foaxZiCws 3EDIWBQY6UavFakzAszAFeDBgA7E/34qcuT/jZOKGfC3n+Rw6ZGIWynMZeK4PQ3M2TTj SbAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKmPXg63h3lL5/Mcti055u9pYJFAIlBLQr6liLdK6+1DcxxpyKMB/V3WZ7wFtwAnM9u X-Received: by 10.28.179.7 with SMTP id c7mr12335221wmf.128.1485166648678; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z90sm13918967wrc.24.2017.01.23.02.17.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Yuanhan Liu Cc: "Dai, Wei" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Liu, Yu Y" , stable@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" , Ferruh Yigit , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Mcnamara, John" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2983105.mkC0Z5UHKR@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20170123094438.GA10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1485157675-32114-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <49759EB36A64CF4892C1AFEC9231E8D63A354E36@PGSMSX106.gar.corp.intel.com> <20170123094438.GA10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] patch 'net/ixgbe/base: fix IXGBE LSWFW register' has been queued to stable release 16.11.1 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: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:17:29 -0000 2017-01-23 17:44, Yuanhan Liu: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:14:08AM +0000, Dai, Wei wrote: > > Hi, Yuanhan > > > > Remove the mail list. > > Add it back. > > > Each time we updated NIC shared code, we always submitted a patch set including multiple patches. > > I notice that only patch with "fix" are applied into stable release. > > I am not sure the NIC can work well without other patches without "fix". > > Indeed the users like STV team always apply whole patch set for shared code update. > > They regards the patch set as whole one. > > So why not apply whole patch set for NIC shared code in stable release ? > > Dai Wei, that's really a good question! And it deserves more discussion, > thus more people are cc'ed. > > Firstly, to answer your question: it's not proper to apply all patches. > Stable tree is meant to apply bug fixes only. Applying all of them looks > more like backporting a feature, which is too risk for a stable release. > > OTOH, if we apply some base fixes, doesn't it mean user also has to do > firmware update? If so, that doesn't sound good to me. I think we should > avoid asking user to do firmware update for a LTS. Correct me if I'm > wrong. > > Maybe we could start with a simple rule first: no base fixes are allowed > for a stable release, unless > - they fixed some severe bugs, AND > - the author can make sure that these fix doesn't require firmware > update and will not break anything. > > Does that sound reasonable? +1