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 16D44A0C41; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:51:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E06B410E9; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:51:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237E74003F for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:51:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624456309; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NJceAk+blw8RK1ITKCZOMIegZyfMxV/hiF6ijN7l6FQ=; b=Rdsi3DBMua+iRCQCK0v+AJax7E4w4qX7qOBB/Lysf+/K6zUwMTsDQA0hS2esV6PHE3u3b6 kvvNHU67UgxL0WQOsf/0S7yvYLsL4RkYxs9Y5P4acfZG/u3RjLVC07zKgGwYzI2DxA1/Pc GdLGBmpdy/IYAk3anWpw0mORNJOwL8Y= Received: from mail-vs1-f72.google.com (mail-vs1-f72.google.com [209.85.217.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-335-3vpdAFHvO3igwQGcLTso_g-1; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:51:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3vpdAFHvO3igwQGcLTso_g-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f72.google.com with SMTP id y129-20020a677d870000b029026b5893c4aaso396360vsc.4 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NJceAk+blw8RK1ITKCZOMIegZyfMxV/hiF6ijN7l6FQ=; b=SXwDlfee0AhWYkOmIdtQ52gP90P1DfzZdzsKrzJyJAWHwJkdFFt5vdAIr322q5YJgk /Jj6m/PhN9V9F4YImJEDflYRPWAXchpcRo8P/EB6AcDgutrGepwh9F2+6/Soo/TtclUa aVd1A8k7mjh6tAoYtborwEJGq4MS1SENlGyDExI+UdKR5Uaq4jxPUXwB5A5Q7r2fY/8w /ZhcYKophlktcsJYTWwD/ocyKK9gLaWhHv6n6MH6lmuwn3F3qWEDsLQwS88h0wwwzh5h k3D6NDC/2WtcHLS4Rc0QP1VoOiOiPXnaiuoC/wiCjDtDsAssyr0JpPHqMbsoSKx1Z6eH dNUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531p1LQAmV6bgwtVflGifIWfUlrLR7mdg4csAiJMAvubs8skGJdG va/EXAvzbJSQ+1bJia0kgPKOkGcGWSgTJmrip3WZ4wC+O7r+divZE6x+PtNOWo/5pmWlV+0riko mAkVDhw8QN61dVIF2/Qo= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fe90:: with SMTP id b16mr135098vsr.5.1624456307531; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxxy3iBFxvTcGvhs6PzPgzKqz2GkVgN3yfTTGmnTyXyxb+9qD2OLMxYp9WMbGz45Zq23f7wcnP46JW+AfCLuoE= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fe90:: with SMTP id b16mr135076vsr.5.1624456307325; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210619124830.25297-1-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:51:35 +0200 Message-ID: To: Slava Ovsiienko Cc: dev , Raslan Darawsheh , Matan Azrad , NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon , dpdk stable Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] common/mlx5: add provider query port support to glue library 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" On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:27 PM Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > > > This patch is highly desirable to be provided in DPDK LTS releases due > > > to it covers the major compatibility issue. > > > > This patch is a fix, yet nothing tells this story in the title. > > This patch is not a fix. Actually it covers the compatibility issue, not a bug. I still think it counts as a fix in the sense that the mlx5 driver behavior changes to an undesired state if rdma-core gets updated. It's not about preferring "fix" in the title. It is more accurate/descriptive to me. If you feel strongly against "fix", I won't insist. Yet "add provider quer port support to glue library" is just black magic to most of us. > The Upstream rdma-core was evolved, its community adopted a > slightly different API version than was presented in the vendor version. > Our PMD should conform both versions and we provided this patch for DPDK. Let's try differently. Place yourself as someone who does not know a thing about the mlx5 driver and rdma-core. How does such a person understand the impact of this patch? I would state in the title that the mlx5 driver can now handle correctly rdma-core 35. Additionally, it could indicate which feature X is now behaving as intended. But if feature X is something internal to the mlx5 driver, it is worth skipping. -- David Marchand