RE: [PATCH for-next 0/2] {IB,net}/hns: Add support of ACPI to the Hisilicon RoCE Driver

-----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:

quoted

quoted

I can take both.  I already pulled net-next to get the initial hns

roce

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

dependent upon HNS Ethernet driver.

Ok.

quoted

But kindly note, there could be some patches in development in HNS

Ethernet driver

quoted

which might sneak in through net-next. These might not be related to

RoCE Driver but

quoted

might have some common files which might lead to conflict again

further down

quoted

the line when you try to merge ACPI RoCE reset again. This HNS driver

change

quoted

is very difficult for us to control since amount of development going

on in HNS

quoted

is of much higher magnitude than the RoCE as of now. It will be

almost impossible

quoted

for us to convince internally and shift that entire development being

done right

quoted

now on net-next and rebase it to your internal hns-roce branch for a

month of time

quoted

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

quoted

So, if I understood you correctly, this delta (which could be large),

when next merge

quoted

window open would be taken care by you. And we can expect below to be

part of 4.9

quoted

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 [off-list ref]
    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD