[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event

[Matan Azrad]

Hi Adrien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 3:02 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event
> 
> Hi Matan,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Adrien
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:28 PM
> > > To: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal
> > > event
> > >
> > > Hi Matan,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > > Hi Adrien,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM
> > > > > To: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> > > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device
> > > > > removal event
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > >
> > > > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it
> > > > > also silently addresses a bug (see large comment you added to
> > > > > priv_link_status_update()).
> > > > >
> > > > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming
> > > > > first and CC stable at dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV
> > > > > support
> > > proper.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code,
> > > > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5
> > > > before
> > > this patch.
> > >
> > > Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a
> > > dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not
> > > supposed to end up calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better
> > > explain the logic behind these changes. What I mean is, if there was
> > > no problem, you wouldn't need to make
> > > priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right?
> > >
> >
> > The separation was done mainly because of the new interrupt
> > implementation, else, there was bug here.
> > The unnecessary  alarm ibv_get_async_event calling was harmless in the
> > previous code.
> > I gets your point for the logic explanation behind these changes and I
> > can add it in this patch commit log to be clearer, something like:
> > The link update operation was separated from the interrupt callback to
> > avoid RMV interrupt disregard and unnecessary event acknowledgment
> > caused by the inconsistent link status alarm callback.
> 
> Yes, it's better to explain why you did this in the commit log, but see below.
> 
> > > > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was
> > > > added here since Nelio and I think the new function,
> > > > priv_link_status_update(), justifies this comment for future review.
> > >
> > > I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of
> > > the dedicated commit.
> > >
> > Are you sure we need to describe the code comment reason in the commit
> log?
> 
> It's a change you did to address a possible bug otherwise so we have to,
> however remember that a commit should, as much as possible, do exactly
> one thing. If you need to explain that you did this in order to do that, "this"
> and "that" can often be identified as two separate commits. Doing so makes
> it much easier for reviewers to understand the reasoning behind changes
> and leads to quicker reviews (makes instant-acks even possible).
> 
> It'd still like a separate commit if you don't mind.

Sorry, but I think it is an infinite order.
I have just added RMV interrupt, I did a lot of things in this patch for it.
I think  I don't need to separate each thing done for this support.
I prefer to stay it in one patch if you don't mind. 
 
> 
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND