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 6C9ACA0C47; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:49:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94874128B; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:49:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54504120E; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9411C5C0520; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Jul 2021 09:49:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= bOXtjgG5OwIpWrbiDPH1RM1S+cxkvH5ehOAPJ9JXLNQ=; b=OKqkvZzmb1ZHLryY 20nyE4ysiF42RH7Gh4bnV2m9Gcnb8cATw0TMXjN4hExg3t5G5Encp2KjOolw8aZk 6ofo8odjEqqtigW2PKT/9NNUZ4ZupkqBbZ/jZ2RHj+aYxSAuJJaunC4yOn36DbIg F/sSyG9kGIVBrJzTAk2Hmtt1VlfF2jIhl2yZxkFRYp7hn1IHtHa1jUBLy4mvq9y+ PHWbJJ07kPI8fFp4pCl1gQQkxi5hAWPEYGLnJ6WJrwfWbZDzbNNumjvLhBtUeSXK TKiWRX9vnJ/RGan1fgk5L+359sDQaGbqGARmCI10f9ThQoeh8WFdmnBaAhc+jNdP tj7MIw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=bOXtjgG5OwIpWrbiDPH1RM1S+cxkvH5ehOAPJ9JXL NQ=; b=oH+X3nygST7rFjBKZcaEf47HxN/UdgoNWIcC1wXsIj7uOLw1+OfoYqDA/ WdYOoLDEWg2XK4R4+fRPO/Y0snuzD/lfQhlyx+y3T+LaqQiOhmIS+TycAI3KzM4T 4UKIMT5upvBUNI1hAytOgDy4S1e8rosE5bMmAMz2uUMikAiLpZHXi6FklR9NfORK AbQ++SwbDtJf8SfAm4lDDnOovkGl7xLDh1sPrKxStvViT1aDDpDf3x6w6oViOLZ+ qm6/cSBGU2JpTqrR9zk1ZGSloYLp2rHSQr8YBIfIeeVZSe5tX7XSihT5CE98oA9/ n9sTSN1l2G94FCI7B8TrTBemF+8xA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrtddtgddvkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:49:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Viacheslav Ovsiienko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, rasland@nvidia.com, matan@nvidia.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, stable@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 15:49:45 +0200 Message-ID: <2607090.gxWda0BUUU@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210701071552.3339-2-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> References: <20210701071552.3339-1-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> <20210701071552.3339-2-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 2/2] common/mlx5: fix compilation flag on port query API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 01/07/2021 09:15, Viacheslav Ovsiienko: > There is the compilation flag HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT > that depends on presence of mlx5dv_query_devx_port routine > in rdma-core library. The english syntax is difficult here. You probably mean: "The compilation flag HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT depends on the presence of mlx5dv_query_devx_port routine in rdma-core library." > The mlx5dv_query_devx_port routine is vendor specific, exists > only in OFED version of rdma-core library and there are the plans "there are plans" > to remove the routine and replace one with Upstream compatible > mlx5dv_query_port version. Which OFED version will have this change? > As mlx5dv_query_devx_port is being removed we should reconsider > all the dependencies on the HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT compilation > flag and introduce the new dedicated compilation flags as needed. "introduce a new" It doesn't explain why HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_CREATE_DEST_IB_PORT is a better flag.