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 73C6AA0547 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 12:28:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F8E40040; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 12:28:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5443441163 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 12:28:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624271300; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DmhZ0JbGemS6crxC/5g9BqN+sO5Xtn1euVUG/c9YApg=; b=WWRbWj9VPhWzz77DV4+hdfXb6fxarn8Nuo7HVgvnjC1BvsmUelU6Okt3gi+jnMZ/l5WR5f aq8MvrBfM9BDvf9tDXPMtMNhilyNfYSgCrr9ZhOh+YvxuAyEGj9p51pzAZBXJnEyPRZt5W hOUIm8i2du1OF5U9bIeVAp30NLp8mdI= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-58-Ab6LfsnbPvu-WGI7ntgnAA-1; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 06:28:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Ab6LfsnbPvu-WGI7ntgnAA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id b3-20020a05600018a3b029011a84f85e1cso4120985wri.10 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 03:28:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:references:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DmhZ0JbGemS6crxC/5g9BqN+sO5Xtn1euVUG/c9YApg=; b=sJjyJ81WGE4MaA1CGCYRkBacHLDWCchIlRvxCEdfOEv5iXcS6+r/aDvm/wIX7PQQ6K B39qO3PGlujEndRAbBsngWj4qiPuWU6IIE8jZBqD6099roougM0fakAaG8ripGtdCOIf hlkdcXaYEA7PGvr1t/U+nklrtmwWOUfI+Sah66UudOGo6300BMpnIgjAoFmGgVZUROL0 4nxfso+sm8O5gUHRax+neUKvqo/NIY/RvnATa/7hwHYeDXc9XSBeUtlyA+Yn+nQESyji SwsrPL7Boc704KWBypc9WB7KftmZMXREnUXdZ2vLIIKaPFKo+rjy9xLxSe01H/VMN0AO FQKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BRMXWBmuyhWn44Uvo5NqZ7gJ6DeT5nPvPMJp9jzVeHVfRN/Fr twwOCeueI2pmn2sMaTHu/9VqDGXgoDPylc9AIRyQkkkzGn2sH+8XW4aVnoFRCmGRByYdvSQYdIP 88b1RGI4= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:45c5:: with SMTP id b5mr5587557wrs.221.1624271296240; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 03:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOQV+LxGPLLaaQnm6HlfgGW1GQHaZp3kLRJNXOFUfcYLZsjFUTaLNPb5+mjEOuf78cw3o2tQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:45c5:: with SMTP id b5mr5587530wrs.221.1624271295992; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 03:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.17.79.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i9sm14121866wrn.13.2021.06.21.03.28.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 03:28:15 -0700 (PDT) To: Thomas Monjalon , "Xueming(Steven) Li" , Luca Boccassi , "Wang, Haiyue" , "christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com" Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Fu, Qi" , techboard@dpdk.org References: <20210611065825.47678-1-haiyue.wang@intel.com> <30bf553b-032c-d992-487f-794cbe1816fe@redhat.com> <10618347.Fq3sR6fjhQ@thomas> From: Kevin Traynor Message-ID: <3f368eff-3fc5-0d9f-7eab-95a731ac110d@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:28:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <10618347.Fq3sR6fjhQ@thomas> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=ktraynor@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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" On 21/06/2021 09:28, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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. > > > Why can't the users use ABI compatible 21.02/21.05? Why do they want to stay on 20.11? The only reason I can see for staying on 20.11 is because it is a stable (bug fix only) release. So you want an LTS that is bug fix only except for ice with new features. A type of LTS-main hybrid for selected drivers seems like something more suited for individual vendors and not replacing the community LTS with IMHO. But if it were to replace the current community LTS, or become the normal, then it should be consciously decided. I feel doing it by adding one big feature at a time to the current LTS is not the right approach.