From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Salil Mehta Subject: RE: [PATCH for-next 0/2] {IB,net}/hns: Add support of ACPI to the Hisilicon RoCE Driver Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:34:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1471985090-202472-1-git-send-email-salil.mehta@huawei.com> <20160824.215341.1803699371957253329.davem@davemloft.net> <8fa4e921-9dfc-bf2b-32c9-230136536f65@redhat.com> <6a3c65b0-500e-c097-7ff4-15ec5f1de19c@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6a3c65b0-500e-c097-7ff4-15ec5f1de19c@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford , David Miller Cc: "Huwei (Xavier)" , oulijun , "Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen)" , "mehta.salil.lnk@gmail.com" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledford@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:00 PM > To: Salil Mehta; David Miller > Cc: Huwei (Xavier); oulijun; Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen); > mehta.salil.lnk@gmail.com; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm > Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 0/2] {IB,net}/hns: Add support of ACPI to > the Hisilicon RoCE Driver > > On 8/25/2016 10:50 AM, Salil Mehta wrote: > > >> I can take both. I already pulled net-next to get the initial hns > roce > >> reset patch from Dave, so these will apply cleanly with my tree and > >> merge cleanly with Dave's due to the common ancestral base. The > only > >> problem is that if you intend to send any other patches that effect > >> this > >> code, then they would need to come through me until the 4.9 merge > >> window > >> is complete so that we don't have later merge conflicts. > > Ok sure, I got your point. Yes, there are few patches we need to push > in > > but are related to RoCE CM(Connection Manager) mode and would follow > > soon. There are no further patches we foresee which are for RoCE > Driver but are > > dependent upon HNS Ethernet driver. > > Ok. > > > But kindly note, there could be some patches in development in HNS > Ethernet driver > > which might sneak in through net-next. These might not be related to > RoCE Driver but > > might have some common files which might lead to conflict again > further down > > the line when you try to merge ACPI RoCE reset again. This HNS driver > change > > is very difficult for us to control since amount of development going > on in HNS > > is of much higher magnitude than the RoCE as of now. It will be > almost impossible > > for us to convince internally and shift that entire development being > done right > > now on net-next and rebase it to your internal hns-roce branch for a > month of time > > till 4.9. This will affect many features deadlines internally. > > This is what Linus wants to avoid. It's not necessary to shift your > work from one tree to another, what is needed if for your RoCE team and > your net team to plan out what you are going to submit for the next > kernel and provide a complete list of conflicting code patches to both > Dave and myself and allow us to pull those patches into both our trees > so there are no conflicts. See the recent threads on linux-rdma about > the pull requests from Mellanox. This is how it needs to be done. > Neither team needs to slow down, or not do your work, you simply need > to > plan that work out and provide a common base for Dave and I to apply > the > separate patches on top of. I got your point now. Thanks for this clear explanation, Doug. I would discuss this internally and plan the other non-related HNS conflicting patches according to the example procedure you indicated in linux-rdma mail-chain. > > > So, if I understood you correctly, this delta (which could be large), > when next merge > > window open would be taken care by you. And we can expect below to be > part of 4.9 > > 1) RoCE Base driver (*Already Accepted*) > > 2) ACPI changes for RoCE Driver (*if accepted*) > > * ACPI changes for the RoCE Driver > > * ACPI changes for RoCE reset function part of the HNS driver > > Both of these changes are already applied to my tree. However, if you > submit other changes to net-next and it starts generating merge > conflicts, you and the net team are going to get yelled at. Ok thanks. I totally understand that, my current efforts of the discussion are to understand the process correctly and to ensure that conflict do not happen. > If you are > going to have a shared driver, then you *HAVE* to work as a larger team > and plan your changes you submit to the linux kernel. Sure, agreed > > -- > Doug Ledford > GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD