[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] 16.11.3 (LTS) patches review and test

[Kevin Traynor]

On 08/21/2017 10:23 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:23:24AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> I think this one should go in too, as OVS hits this and writes back the
>>>> wrong watermark value to the shared register which can cause problems
>>>> for other ports. I've applied and tested it with DPDK 16.11.
>>>>
>>>> commit 0e61ab56e01655f02bfe4e6249e032e864b0f5dd
>>>> Author: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>>> Date:   Thu Aug 10 18:48:07 2017 +0800
>>>>
>>>>     net/i40e: fix flow control watermark mismatch
>>>>
>>>>     Flow control watermark is not read out correctly,
>>>>     that may cause an application who not intend to change
>>>>     watermark but does change it with a rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_set
>>>>     call right after rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_get.
>>>
>>> Weird, I couldn't find this commit:
>>>
>>>     $ git show 0e61ab56e01655f02bfe4e6249e032e864b0f5dd
>>>     fatal: bad object 0e61ab56e01655f02bfe4e6249e032e864b0f5dd
>>
>> The commit is in next-net. Not sure how to proceed, any idea?
> 
> I see. Thanks. So it's not merged to Thomas tree yet. I normally take
> commits from there. Because I add a tag like following every time I
> pick a commit:
> 
>     [ upstream commit 5b9b65b14e05c106bb8229c0fe0b347315da7d00 ]
>

oops, I didn't think about that :/

> If I take commits directly from next-* tree, the commit could have
> been changed while merging to Thomas tree, for two reasons:
> 
> - the next-* could have done a rebase
> - we don't do "git merge" at Thomas tree
> 
> 
> However, if that commit is urgent, I think I could make it for 16.11.3
> release with following tag:
> 
>     [ next-net commit 0e61ab56e01655f02bfe4e6249e032e864b0f5dd ]
> 
> If not, I will postone it to 16.11.4.
> 
> 	--yliu
> 

Given that it took 9 months for the bug to be found, I think postponing
to DPDK 16.11.4 is better than upsetting the dpdk-stable commit log to
reference multiple repos.

thanks,
Kevin.