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 0C874A0547 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:59:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F329540040; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:59:19 +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 2420F40040 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:59:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624265958; 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=ZjTG8xmRz7HdSoGK9y+MWcd5kC23k++02E5RATitJQI=; b=Ar+zM+bQuTx984CQLcBzq5Vuk/d7IpL6nOi08y0Wv03FDKHco1e+lN0gyKMoOW5UZwJAZo r3uzyxBfiWbBYU6GD599PYeishQXCYxfONq0eUhn/qhEo+8uZGdYybJLn6BQKHZMU4Bw+F cjVkOrT9JzYLIiAHWSpTuCL0VokXEg8= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-184-0CwVfOnQMSO-oIVMHWldjg-1; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:59:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0CwVfOnQMSO-oIVMHWldjg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id o3-20020a05600c5103b02901aeb7a4ac06so124911wms.5 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 01:59:16 -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=ZjTG8xmRz7HdSoGK9y+MWcd5kC23k++02E5RATitJQI=; b=g40jjMu9cPLk5Yi0Dfgu5JB7Mw+3grupui68d+bcVwRv439IhZgMluHQxVfpSTAX2e DyVyvqTF6S8HrfVy8gwUNCIPiv6rwSXSkcHEyU9sVwHktO++cg5bJ4iP8bFfQwFhvpAI uk61ZcESrAFpo8MYG9cvPYWOyWMmdFJCWbm1ELU3h1pu3+75jP0S2GmOoswIkYLh5jPP DKE7y7W1NpCabRSAMqfiVmwK9lp+ZGMmWTVNWGqU5Noxgcjj2ro9W7QuTljKvPvw52Yh MOxH6/6IBl94/sCdt0/kpYfzMUJQvcGtDaSunMhAIL67ZLV+9c6nHna3fOWRUILrX5LE et2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533AiNj+hm5RVImOSnebQQixzuHSxAxKk2pAutRAtpMBQv8Eh+7d 3mx3qjJRmfOv2vEjOUngo8JApbgg+tVhQ81lhpvU/sMOpYlyFgHKsiN1UZk9ZQt5BeiHRR42rnU oTTYlfds= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2141:: with SMTP id v1mr26427728wml.68.1624265956029; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 01:59:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUVU7TbZay53fuaqlHbtd2EtbuAfGv2ybmrBNDIBCOGEQu6VNAwDNKZMG5zmvMdt73SZPdUA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2141:: with SMTP id v1mr26427708wml.68.1624265955832; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 01:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.17.79.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b11sm688192wmj.25.2021.06.21.01.59.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 01:59:15 -0700 (PDT) To: "Wang, Haiyue" , Thomas Monjalon , "Xueming(Steven) Li" , Luca Boccassi , "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: <5af13668-f31f-af70-1429-8a3f9422a751@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 09:59:13 +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: 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 09:34, Wang, Haiyue wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Monjalon >> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 16:29 >> 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 >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new VLAN design for Intel ice PMD >> >> 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. > > "Performance improvements are generally not considered to be fixes, but may be > considered in some cases where: > > It is fixing a performance regression that occurred previously. > An existing feature in LTS is not usable as intended without it." > > I think "An existing feature in LTS is not usable as intended without it " can > be one reason, since the old design is out of date in two year of LTS lifetime. > This section is about performance improvements e.g. optimising some code to increase throughput. Added because it's not as obvious whether performance improvements are a fix or new functionality and it was discussed a few times. I don't believe it is relevant to these patches. >> I think it would be a bad situation for all of us. >> >> >