From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: "Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 09:12:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170906071252.GJ4301@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0502MB304857DAD69E5EB7B92ED856D2960@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Matan,
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:36:13PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Adrien
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 3:02 PM
> > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event
> >
> > Hi Matan,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > Hi Adrien
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:28 PM
> > > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal
> > > > event
> > > >
> > > > Hi Matan,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > > > Hi Adrien,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM
> > > > > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device
> > > > > > removal event
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it
> > > > > > also silently addresses a bug (see large comment you added to
> > > > > > priv_link_status_update()).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming
> > > > > > first and CC stable@dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV
> > > > > > support
> > > > proper.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code,
> > > > > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5
> > > > > before
> > > > this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a
> > > > dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not
> > > > supposed to end up calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better
> > > > explain the logic behind these changes. What I mean is, if there was
> > > > no problem, you wouldn't need to make
> > > > priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The separation was done mainly because of the new interrupt
> > > implementation, else, there was bug here.
> > > The unnecessary alarm ibv_get_async_event calling was harmless in the
> > > previous code.
> > > I gets your point for the logic explanation behind these changes and I
> > > can add it in this patch commit log to be clearer, something like:
> > > The link update operation was separated from the interrupt callback to
> > > avoid RMV interrupt disregard and unnecessary event acknowledgment
> > > caused by the inconsistent link status alarm callback.
> >
> > Yes, it's better to explain why you did this in the commit log, but see below.
> >
> > > > > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was
> > > > > added here since Nelio and I think the new function,
> > > > > priv_link_status_update(), justifies this comment for future review.
> > > >
> > > > I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of
> > > > the dedicated commit.
> > > >
> > > Are you sure we need to describe the code comment reason in the commit
> > log?
> >
> > It's a change you did to address a possible bug otherwise so we have to,
> > however remember that a commit should, as much as possible, do exactly
> > one thing. If you need to explain that you did this in order to do that, "this"
> > and "that" can often be identified as two separate commits. Doing so makes
> > it much easier for reviewers to understand the reasoning behind changes
> > and leads to quicker reviews (makes instant-acks even possible).
> >
> > It'd still like a separate commit if you don't mind.
>
> Sorry, but I think it is an infinite order.
> I have just added RMV interrupt, I did a lot of things in this patch for it.
> I think I don't need to separate each thing done for this support.
> I prefer to stay it in one patch if you don't mind.
I understand that's a lot of work, so let's cut the talk. Since I'm the one
requesting for patches to be split, I'll offer to re-spin yours and submit
the result as v4, is that OK?
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-06 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-13 12:25 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] " Matan Azrad
2017-08-13 12:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/mlx5: fix probe failure report Matan Azrad
2017-08-23 9:44 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-09-01 10:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-23 9:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/mlx5: support device removal event Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-23 19:44 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-24 7:38 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-24 14:33 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-25 8:29 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-29 8:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Matan Azrad
2017-09-04 12:49 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-09-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Matan Azrad
2017-09-04 15:33 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-04 17:52 ` Matan Azrad
2017-09-05 9:28 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-05 10:38 ` Matan Azrad
2017-09-05 12:01 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-05 13:36 ` Matan Azrad
2017-09-06 7:12 ` Adrien Mazarguil [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170906071252.GJ4301@6wind.com \
--to=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).