[dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new VLAN design for Intel ice PMD

[Kevin Traynor]

On 18/06/2021 04:22, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 18:05
>> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>; Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>; Luca Boccassi
>> <bluca at debian.org>; stable at dpdk.org
>> Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com; Zhang, Qi Z
>> <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new VLAN design for Intel ice PMD
>>
>> On 17/06/2021 09:53, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
>>> Hi Haiyue,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 9:16 AM
>>>> To: Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>; stable at dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>;
>>>> christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com; ktraynor at redhat.com; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>>> Subject: RE: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new VLAN design for Intel ice PMD
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 23:47
>>>>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>; stable at dpdk.org
>>>>> Cc: xuemingl at nvidia.com; thomas at monjalon.net;
>>>>> christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com; ktraynor at redhat.com; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>>> <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 20.11 v2 00/18] Backport the new
>>>>> VLAN design for Intel ice PMD
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: Fix the subject fix with messy code like : PATCHÂ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haiyue Wang (4):
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: do not set VLAN mode in DCF mode
>>>>>>   net/ice: fix VLAN strip for double VLAN
>>>>>>   net/ice: fix VLAN 0 adding based on VLAN mode
>>>>>>   net/ice: update QinQ switch filter handling
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Junfeng Guo (1):
>>>>>>   net/ice: enable QinQ filter for switch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Qi Zhang (12):
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: align add VSI and update VSI AQ command buffer
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: add interface to support configuring VLAN mode
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: fix outer VLAN related macro
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: add VLAN TPID for VLAN filters
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: support checking double VLAN mode
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: support configuring device in double VLAN mode
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: update boost TCAM for DVM
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: change protocol ID for VLAN in DVM
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: refactor post DDP download VLAN mode config
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: log if DDP/FW do not support QinQ
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: add inner VLAN protocol type for QinQ filter
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: fix QinQ PPPoE dummy packet selection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yuying Zhang (1):
>>>>>>   net/ice/base: add ethertype offset for QinQ dummy packet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_adminq_cmd.h    | 268 ++++++++-----
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_bitops.h        |  45 +++
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_common.c        |  38 ++
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_common.h        |   4 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_flex_pipe.c     | 302 +++++++++++++--
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_flex_pipe.h     |  12 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_flex_type.h     |  39 ++
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_protocol_type.h |   1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c        | 124 +++++-
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.h        |  15 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_type.h          |   4 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_vlan_mode.c     | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/ice_vlan_mode.h     |  16 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/base/meson.build         |   1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c             | 455 +++++++++++++----------
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.h             |  10 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/ice_generic_flow.c       |   8 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/ice_generic_flow.h       |   1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ice/ice_switch_filter.c      | 114 +++++-
>>>>>>  19 files changed, 1545 insertions(+), 363 deletions(-)  create mode
>>>>>> 100644 drivers/net/ice/base/ice_vlan_mode.c
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ice/base/ice_vlan_mode.h
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> See:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks for using the questions as a way to discuss it, it is a good way
>> to see if they are useful. Just to note, they were to try and capture
>> some of the important things for a maintainer to consider, it is not a
>> flow chart leading to a binary answer (though clearly some things like
>> ABI breakage, probably would end the discussion).
>>
>>>> 01. Does the feature break API/ABI?
>>>>
>>>>  NO.
>>>>
>>>> 02. Does the feature break backwards compatibility?
>>>>
>>>>  NO.
>>>>
>>>> 03. Is it for the latest LTS release (to avoid LTS upgrade issues)?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> 04. Is there a commitment from the proposer or affiliation to validate the feature and check for
>> regressions in related functionality?
>>>>
>>>> Passed internally, if needed, an official Test-by can be provided.
>>>>
>>
>> It would be better to share test cases (even high level), not just a
>> tested-by which doesn't give any idea of test coverage.
> 
> + Fu Qi, who can share the test cases from dts.
> 
>>
>> I would look at it like:
>> The new functionality not working with the new firmware and new code is
>> not a big issue.
>>
>> The old functionality not working with the new firmware and the new code
>> is a big issue.
>>
>> The old functionality not working with the old firmware and the new code
>> is a very big issue.
>>
>> So regression testing of the old functionality would be the most
>> important IMHO.
> 
> This is some kind of compatibility matrix, sure, it make both works. This part
> can be covered by the test cases.
> 
>>
>>>> 05. Is there a track record of the proposer or affiliation validating stable releases?
>>>>
>>
>> Yes, Intel tests every LTS release.
>>
>>>> Bugzilla ?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 07. How intrusive is the code change?
>>>>
>>>>  From LOC, yes, 1.9K seems to be BIG, but DPDK PMD related is 588, other is  the share code in base
>> (1320), which is tested and
>>>> validated on other platform.
>>>>
>>
>> Very intrusive. It seems to be big, because it is big.
>>
>>>>      drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c             | 455 +++++++++++++----------
>>>>      drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.h             |  10 +-
>>>>      drivers/net/ice/ice_generic_flow.c       |   8 +
>>>>      drivers/net/ice/ice_generic_flow.h       |   1 +
>>>>      drivers/net/ice/ice_switch_filter.c      | 114 +++++-
>>>>
>>>> 08. What is the scope of the code change?
>>>>
>>>> PMD only.
>>>>
>>>> 09. Does it impact common components or vendor specific?
>>>>
>>>> NO.
>>>>
>>>> 10. Is there a justifiable use case (a clear user need)?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, for firmware updated. And we have the customer who wants to use the VLAN feature on LTS 20.11.
>>>>
>>
>> Well, like a lot of the considerations, this is subjective and everyone
>> will think there is a need for their own patches, that is a given. It is
>> for the maintainer to try and balance the need of the feature against
>> the possible impacts to the LTS.
>>
>> It seems like you mentioned "for updated firmware" and "customer who
>> wants to used the VLAN feature" as separate points. If there is a
>> separate need for updating firmware aside from new VLAN functionality,
>> it is good to state that.
>>
>>>> 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.
> 

Just to note, I wasn't specifically referring to Intel drivers, just
discussing what is an acceptable limit of churn.

>> LOC limit when this was last discussed at the TB, as it's a crude way to
>> judge code complexity/risk, but maybe it should be considered.
>>
>> On the positive side it is self-contained and Intel has an excellent
>> track record for testing LTS.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/stable.html#what-changes-shou
>>>>> ld-be-backported
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Luca Boccassi
>