Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] net/mlx5: fixes for the new flow engine

[Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>]

Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:49 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] net/mlx5: fixes for the new flow engine
> 
> On 10/9/2018 9:58 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > Monday, October 8, 2018 9:02 PM, Yongseok Koh:
> >> Subject: [PATCH 0/7] net/mlx5: fixes for the new flow engine

[...]

> >> djWRGvBzaqpfUVsn8%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> Yongseok Koh (7):
> >>   net/mlx5: fix wrong flow action macro usage
> >>   net/mlx5: use standard IP protocol numbers
> >>   net/mlx5: rename flow macros
> >>   net/mlx5: fix validation of VLAN ID in flow spec
> >>   net/mlx5: fix flow validation for no fate action
> >>   net/mlx5: add missing VLAN action constraints
> >>   net/mlx5: fix errno values for flow engine
> >>
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c       | 117 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
> ----
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.h       |  54 ++++++++---------
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c    |  30 +++++-----
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_tcf.c   |  78 +++++++++++++++++++------
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_verbs.c |  59 ++++++++++---------
> >>  5 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-)
> >
> > Series applied to next-net-mlx, thanks.
> > Need to add the missing VLAN limitation of the "pop always to non-uplink"
> on a separate commit, don't want to stall the entire series.
> 
> Hi Shahaf,
> 
> These are fixing mlx5 patches which are merged very recently, that is why I
> tried to squash these to original commit. This is both for more clean git
> history and to have correct Fixes information in commit logs.

I am not sure I agree here. There was a feature which was accepted and later on it had some bug fixes. 
I think it is better to separate between the two, because:
1. I don't think it spams that much the git history
2. if the small fix raised a different bug it will be easier to bisect and track it rather than trying to check what is wrong on the big feature patch

> 
> I can able to squash: 1/7, 2/7 & 4/7
> 
> But 4 are still remaining, main reason is they fixes more than one commit so
> not easy to squash into one.
> 
> I won't merge remaining ones for now, can you please rebase them on top of
> next-net, and try to arrange in a way to squash into next-net, if not able to
> make we can get them as it is.

If it is not critical for you, I suggest we take them as is. It will require some work to re-arrange them + test again.
Let me know.