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 C227AA0547 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFC740040; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F4E40040; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CBB5C0068; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:28:47 -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= dsqExhL+seeEk+oHbtBy5/4BeI+FjH9IZXJsVwYbanE=; b=hWHhfkTSNj/d0+GQ hBV334ytJ7Miq7qjxhb9qf+FBrpMlRMmcswgb7dx84SZr/0sziHCB16uQYbt9LpA PMFbUvYMm5885rqzraad34onVcmpsbwEILRS5mR3mjGux+6tUbmkqnNQXZmTPKQj 9tQ9D1ajMLzwIVXcviKftJ4FIpuUsdwP255vi9wuC4SYA0nacY4TeCesXK1httCe 5sgHyOyDgwDY68zHv0/f0xAQysopvWT3sKlwKDu2RPHij1OKz8VhSr2tPpk4Iy+X HBnEwrQfL5Cq0KPJNp0l/Te9UK3kJQQziPZi4/pet/hH6FslVgBJ3KhccN85i2en lWoshQ== 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=dsqExhL+seeEk+oHbtBy5/4BeI+FjH9IZXJsVwYba nE=; b=dfmzURS3f8Xz8B4fCOCFUGq/vrZ6XeYTJcyfD2EK6lLlbXDHryBdvxzIP r7EKivRALaYELMxUuNItdC9usN/7MJOBBThAanMHe8xBYPJMxTPxLAI111edpASk M7/ObvkI5XZHCesvx5YtI/3Cxc+CFMSCQqT7T8uenhXsbQ/XxkMrFVvHQ2MIxByT /xV/lSARHwn6kmnQyLl3fr4IIjF0p2SmhhY5i7BoeJAREWiTCGb2ixqAWzFtXZVt CsZx1vdsQO4gEjIzuH1udyI7r1jFfYpf+G+TGZMxesSiD0JrZIJEDt16JWMQaizL +5LAklSYEw+XBHY8Mbst+rgR1+u5Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeefledgtdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Kevin Traynor , "Xueming(Steven) Li" , Luca Boccassi , "Wang, Haiyue" , "christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com" Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Fu, Qi" , techboard@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:28:41 +0200 Message-ID: <10618347.Fq3sR6fjhQ@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210611065825.47678-1-haiyue.wang@intel.com> <30bf553b-032c-d992-487f-794cbe1816fe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new VLAN design for Intel ice PMD X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 18/06/2021 05:22, Wang, Haiyue: > From: Kevin Traynor > > On 17/06/2021 09:53, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > From: Wang, Haiyue > > >> From: Luca Boccassi > > >>> On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 15:15 +0800, Haiyue Wang wrote: > > >>>> When LTS 20.11 was released, the Intel ice PMD has a basic VLAN > > >>>> offload, which can only handle single VLAN mode for firmware > > >>>> limitation. Now the firmware is updated to support double VLAN mode > > >>>> and single VLAN mode at the same time. > > >>>> It depends on the driver to do selection at the boot time. > > >>>> > > >>>> As VLAN protocol handling like strip, filter, flow is very common > > >>>> use, we request to support the ice PMD can run on the latest > > >>>> firmware for enabling the new design. This is compatible backport as the main tree. [...] > > >>>> 19 files changed, 1545 insertions(+), 363 deletions(-) create mode [...] > > >>> At 1.9k diffstat, this series is quite large. Given it's a new > > >>> feature, rather than a series of bug fixes, this would seem a bit risky to me. > > >>> Final word of course belongs to Xueming, since he's managing this one. [...] > > >> 06. Is it obvious that the feature will not impact existing functionality? > > >> > > >> Yes. > > > > No. It is 1.9KLOC change. The key part of the question is "obvious". It > > was meant so the maintainer could use their judgement and review that > > for example, a few lines of code adding a PCI ID or adding a case in a > > switch statement, is obviously not going to impact existing functionality. > > On the other hand, for a more complex code change to existing code, it > > is not immediately obvious that there would be no risk to existing > > functionality. [...] > > >> 11. Is there a community consensus about the backport? > > >> > > >> ... > > > > > > Kevin happens to updated the documents on new feature backport 4 months ago, thanks for checking > > them > > > one by one. Luca's only concern is size of the series, driver vendor is on it's own risk to backport > > a big patch set. > > > The series supports new fw and QinQ, is it easy to split? > > > > > > Kevin, is this the first case of feature backport? How do you think? > > > > > > > Like Luca, main concern would be the size and intrusiveness of the > > changes, and if it's ok to change 1.9KLOC in this driver now, then why > > not 20KLOC in next release to multiple drivers. I had pushed against a > > TBH, we won't want to change the stable i40e, ixgbe PMDs, but ice is a fresh > one, current VLAN has a limited usage, customer is hard to use. That's why we > try to request to backport the new VLAN design. Yes ice is quite recent. If a required feature is not working, it should motivate to upgrade. Because ice is "fresh", I don't understand why sticking to 20.11. My concern is that backporting this big feature would create a precedent, so all users will require to stick on the last LTS when getting all the new reworked features. I think it would be a bad situation for all of us.