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: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:13:54 +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. Hello Doug/David, As per above discussion, we have identified certain conflicting patches in HNS driver pipeline which are in conflict With already accepted HNS ACPI Reset patch in your internal hns-roce repo. We would like to float them on the lines of Mellanox git-pull request example you mentioned earlier. HNS driver Patches *in-pipeline* are(formally, later-on, I shall provide start and end commit IDs within our internal repo): End-commit-ID net: hns: fix the bug of forwarding table net: hns: fix port not available after testing loopback net: hns: add promisc mode for hns net: hns: add fuzzy match of tcam table for hns net: hns: delete repeat read fbd num after while net: hns: add fini_process for v2 napi process net: hns: bug fix about setting coalsecs-usecs to 0 net:hns:fix port unavailable after hnae_reserve_buffer_map fail start-commit-ID All of above patches are dependent on the presence of below patch: "IB/hns: Add support of ACPI to HNS RoCE Reset function" This patch is already accepted and is part of your k.o/for-4.9-topics/hns-roce. But this is not part of David Miller's "net-next" yet, so I was wondering How should I raise the pull request of above set of patches. If I include the already accepted patch then it will lead conflict in your repo (as it is already part of it) else it will lead conflict in David's net-next when he pulls above patches. Hope the answer is not trivial and I am not missing anything here. Please guide. Thanks! Best regards Salil > > 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. 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. > > > -- > Doug Ledford > GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD