From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C433A050C for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:59:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125FE427F6; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:59:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CCA4068B; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:59:28 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PATCH] mbuf: expose outer vlan in mbuf dump Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:59:25 +0200 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86FDA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <6763347.18pcnM708K@thomas> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH] mbuf: expose outer vlan in mbuf dump Thread-Index: AdhPLmz2ySKcZ6csROW2Y8+8aDUSdQAB8LMQ References: <20220404005634.2657-1-koncept1@gmail.com> <6763347.18pcnM708K@thomas> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Thomas Monjalon" , "Olivier Matz" , "Ben Magistro" Cc: , , "Stefan Baranoff" , , "Luca Boccassi" , "Christian Ehrhardt" , "Xueming(Steven) Li" , "Kevin Traynor" , X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 April 2022 14.03 >=20 > 12/04/2022 18:11, Ben Magistro: > > Was there a consensus on if this should be re-drafted as a bug and > fixes or > > left as a backportable feature/improvement? I am good either way, > just > > wanted to clarify if I had an additional action at this time. >=20 > There is no consensus but that's a detail. >=20 > In any case we agree to backport it. > I'll merge it with Cc: stable@dpdk.org +1 to that, Thomas! >=20 >=20 > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:33 AM Olivier Matz > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 04/04/2022 12:33, Kevin Traynor: > > > > > On 04/04/2022 07:15, Morten Br=F8rup wrote: > > > > > >> From: Ben Magistro [mailto:koncept1@gmail.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, 4 April 2022 02.57 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Enable printing of the outer vlan if flags indicate it is > present. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Magistro > > > > > > Acked-by: Olivier Matz > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> --- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> While troubleshooting some QinQ offloads with various Intel > i40e > > > > > >> firmware[1], it was > > > > > >> helpful to expose the outer vlan in the dump mbuf calls. > This > > > should > > > > > >> be straightforward > > > > > >> to backport and happy to do the work if accepted. I > understand that > > > > > >> this may not be a > > > > > >> widely supported capability at this time, so we are okay if > this is > > > not > > > > > >> accepted and > > > > > >> we just maintain a local patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Features are usually not backported, only bug fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, since this patch proved helpful finding a bug, and > it is > > > very simple, it could be considered by the LTS maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggest to tag the patch with 'Cc: stable@dpdk.org' to = indicate > it is > > > > > requested for stable branches. It will be caught by stable > maintainer > > > > > filters when it is time for backports and can be discussed > further > > > then. > > > > > > > > I think it is a bug. > > > > What was introduced first? the function or the field? > > > > Please find the commit where it should have been done > > > > and mark it with "Fixes:" syntax + Cc:stable. > > > > > > The vlan dump was introduced by commit 5b6eaea8ea7c ("mbuf: = display > more > > > fields in dump"), but I don't think we can say it's a bug. To me, > it is > > > an enhancement that could be backported, because there is a = benefit > with > > > a very low risk. > > > > > >=20