From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD0D4CB5; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 17:39:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2713F73C; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:39:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ktraynor.remote.csb (unknown [10.36.118.31]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C435D756; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:39:35 +0000 (UTC) To: Ferruh Yigit , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Li, Xiaoyun" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" , Yongseok Koh , Luca Boccassi References: <1536332411-31457-1-git-send-email-xiaoyun.li@intel.com> <1543820866-3644-1-git-send-email-xiaoyun.li@intel.com> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532F8B1F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <858a09d6-8953-c5c5-c63c-7134d7bb2c2f@redhat.com> From: Kevin Traynor Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <77a150f6-d8d0-ab87-006c-12dbbda39cf4@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:39:35 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] net/i40e: firmware status check X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:39:38 -0000 On 12/17/2018 10:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/14/2018 4:59 PM, Kevin Traynor wrote: >> On 12/03/2018 08:07 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Li, Xiaoyun >>>> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 3:08 PM >>>> To: Zhang, Qi Z >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Li, Xiaoyun >>>> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: firmware status check >>>> >>>> Check the firmware status at init time. If the firmware is in recovery mode, alert >>>> the user to check it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li >>> >>> Acked-by: Qi Zhang >>> >>> Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel. >>> >> >> This was applied with a 'Cc:stable' tag, but no 'Fixes' tag. > > This fixes a behavior in the driver, but not a specific code/commit, and author > request this behavior change to backport. This request makes sense to me but > what do you think from stable tree point of view? Are you OK with this kind of > request? > It makes sense to me also to backport, I guess it can be seen as a fix for the original pmd which was missing this code: Fixes: 4861cde46116 ("i40e: new poll mode driver") or if only relevant since some base driver/firmware change, then Fixes: from that update. >> What stable branches is it relevant for? > > I agree it is hard to define the scope of the fix without having the code that > is fixed. Do you have any suggestion how to formalize the request for these kind > of issues? > I tend to think if it's a *fix*, then some code was previously added that was incorrect, or had a missing piece, or became incorrect at some point due to another other change, so 'Fixes:' should almost always be possible. However, if for some reason it's not clear and there's not too many, then a simple solution is to reply to thread (cc'ing stable) saying which which stable branches it is relevant for. I will check the thread for info when I see a patch like that. 'Fixes:' is much preferred though, so not to have manual checking of email threads. Kevin. >> >>> Thanks >>> Qi >>> >>> >> >