From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21622A5B for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:29:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 02:29:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,274,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="51524005" Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.28]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 02:29:07 -0800 Received: from irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.4) by irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:29:03 +0000 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.77]) by irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.109]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:29:03 +0000 From: "Mcnamara, John" To: Yuanhan Liu , "Dai, Wei" CC: "Zhang, Helin" , "Liu, Yu Y" , "stable@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Wu, Jingjing" , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: patch 'net/ixgbe/base: fix IXGBE LSWFW register' has been queued to stable release 16.11.1 Thread-Index: AQHSdV0Jezks/ivdmUiyIm+13X7JPKFFz79A Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:29:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1485157675-32114-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1485157675-32114-39-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <49759EB36A64CF4892C1AFEC9231E8D63A354E36@PGSMSX106.gar.corp.intel.com> <20170123094438.GA10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20170123094438.GA10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNDE0YWU2ZDUtYTM4Ni00ZDg5LThkMjctNzZkM2I2ZDIwZjVlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjdsVnU4S3R0SzVXRCtnWFhQUkk1ajA2VjkxdkVrQmlZYVZKMkNDWkNlOG89In0= x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 10:29:10 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:45 AM > To: Dai, Wei > Cc: Zhang, Helin ; Liu, Yu Y ; > stable@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce ; Yigit, > Ferruh ; Lu, Wenzhuo ; Wu, > Jingjing ; Thomas Monjalon > ; Mcnamara, John > Subject: Re: patch 'net/ixgbe/base: fix IXGBE LSWFW register' has been > queued to stable release 16.11.1 >=20 > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:14:08AM +0000, Dai, Wei wrote: > > Hi, Yuanhan > > > > Remove the mail list. >=20 > Add it back. >=20 > > 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 = ? >=20 > Dai Wei, that's really a good question! And it deserves more discussion, > thus more people are cc'ed. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Does that sound reasonable? Hi, That sounds like a reasonable approach to me. John =20