From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] vhost: optimize enqueue Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:35:01 +0200 Message-ID: <1565135.2L3BcyTl7O@xps13> References: <1471319402-112998-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <2a5320b9-c9dd-f7e3-e659-7d14cd1e5620@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Maxime Coquelin , Zhihong Wang , yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173EE37B2 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:35:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id q128so114562899wma.1 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 03:35:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2a5320b9-c9dd-f7e3-e659-7d14cd1e5620@redhat.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-08-22 12:01, Maxime Coquelin: > I forgot to add that before this series, I think we should first fix the windows bug. > Else we will need a dedicated fix for the stable branch. This is a funny situation :) If Zhihong had reworked the code without mentioning it is fixing a scenario with Windows guests, maybe that nobody would have notice ;) That's probably why it is not written in v2/v3. But thanks to the v1, we all know it: "It also fixes the issue working with Windows VMs." So yes, it would be a lot better to find the root cause and try to have a minimal fix for 16.07, then rework the code for performance in 16.11. I think we must avoid silent fixes, and even more, avoid writing specific fixes for stable branches without validating them in the master branch and its large users base. Thanks for your good works guys, DPDK vhost is improving very well.