Hi,
As I'm currently preparing another fix for i40e, and the last one I
submitted has been stuck for about two weeks now, I would like to ask
some details about the process to submit fixes for i40e/i40evf drivers,
before I do something wrong again.
Do all the patches have to go through Intel's patchwork, no matter
what's the perceived severity of the issue? Should I still submit them
to netdev anyway?
Which trees should I check before submitting a patch? Is it enough to
check the master branch of jkirsher/net-queue.git and
jkirsher/next-queue.git?
Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some
kind of periodically scheduled pull request process?
I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail,
but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is
waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things
happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting
for.
Any answer is appreciated. Thanks,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stefano Brivio [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi,
As I'm currently preparing another fix for i40e, and the last one I
submitted has been stuck for about two weeks now, I would like to ask
some details about the process to submit fixes for i40e/i40evf drivers,
before I do something wrong again.
Do all the patches have to go through Intel's patchwork, no matter
what's the perceived severity of the issue? Should I still submit them
to netdev anyway?
It is preferred if they go through Intel's patchwork as they should go
through some additional testing and review that way.
Which trees should I check before submitting a patch? Is it enough to
check the master branch of jkirsher/net-queue.git and
jkirsher/next-queue.git?
It depends on if you want to see the patches end up in Dave's net tree
or his net-next tree. If the fix is high enough priority to be
accepted into Dave's net tree then you can submit it against Jeff's
net-queue, otherwise it should be the next-queue. You might want to
check the next-queue for a fix if you are seeing an issue though, as
there is a chance of a fix for an issue you deem critical ending up
there if somebody else judged it differently.
Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some
kind of periodically scheduled pull request process?
Once in the patchwork they go through testing and after they have
passed testing Jeff will try to push them to Dave.
I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail,
but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is
waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things
happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting
for.
Well in the case of your patch it was rejected as it didn't apply to
Jeff's tree and conflicted with Jacob Keller's patch. He submitted a
v2 on Tuesday which has only been applied for a few days. Once it
receives a "Tested-by:" it will be ready for submission assuming it
passes testing.
Any answer is appreciated. Thanks,
--
Stefano
I hope that helps to clarify things.
- Alex
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:10:08 -0700
Alexander Duyck [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stefano Brivio [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]
quoted
Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some
kind of periodically scheduled pull request process?
Once in the patchwork they go through testing and after they have
passed testing Jeff will try to push them to Dave.
Ok, the whole part above is clear, thanks a lot for clarifying.
quoted
I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail,
but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is
waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things
happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting
for.
Well in the case of your patch it was rejected as it didn't apply to
Jeff's tree
It actually did when I posted it.
and conflicted with Jacob Keller's patch. He submitted a v2 on Tuesday
which has only been applied for a few days. Once it receives a
"Tested-by:"
Which, if I understood correctly, only comes after some internal testing
process, right?
it will be ready for submission assuming it passes testing.
Now that patch is again in a v2 pull request for net-next, without the
changes I suggested for the commit message. And the same exact code
changes were around for two weeks. IMHO there's room for improvement,
so to speak.
I hope that helps to clarify things.
It did to some extent, and thanks again for that.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Stefano Brivio [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:10:08 -0700
Alexander Duyck [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stefano Brivio [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]
quoted
Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some
kind of periodically scheduled pull request process?
Once in the patchwork they go through testing and after they have
passed testing Jeff will try to push them to Dave.
Ok, the whole part above is clear, thanks a lot for clarifying.
quoted
quoted
I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail,
but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is
waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things
happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting
for.
Well in the case of your patch it was rejected as it didn't apply to
Jeff's tree
It actually did when I posted it.
quoted
and conflicted with Jacob Keller's patch. He submitted a v2 on Tuesday
which has only been applied for a few days. Once it receives a
"Tested-by:"
Which, if I understood correctly, only comes after some internal testing
process, right?
quoted
it will be ready for submission assuming it passes testing.
Now that patch is again in a v2 pull request for net-next, without the
changes I suggested for the commit message. And the same exact code
changes were around for two weeks. IMHO there's room for improvement,
so to speak.
quoted
I hope that helps to clarify things.
It did to some extent, and thanks again for that.
One other thing I forgot that adds to the confusion is that you will
probably want to base you patch on the dev-queue branch of those
trees, not the master branch. The master branch is what Jeff submits
to Dave if I am not mistaken, while dev-queue is the location for the
ongoing development.
- Alex