On 10/10/2018 11:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 10/10/2018 6:57 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: >> Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:49 PM, Ferruh Yigit: >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] net/mlx5: fixes for the new flow engine >>> >>> On 10/9/2018 9:58 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: >>>> Monday, October 8, 2018 9:02 PM, Yongseok Koh: >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 0/7] net/mlx5: fixes for the new flow engine >> >> [...] >> >>>>> djWRGvBzaqpfUVsn8%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> Yongseok Koh (7): >>>>> net/mlx5: fix wrong flow action macro usage >>>>> net/mlx5: use standard IP protocol numbers >>>>> net/mlx5: rename flow macros >>>>> net/mlx5: fix validation of VLAN ID in flow spec >>>>> net/mlx5: fix flow validation for no fate action >>>>> net/mlx5: add missing VLAN action constraints >>>>> net/mlx5: fix errno values for flow engine >>>>> >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++----------- >>> ---- >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.h | 54 ++++++++--------- >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c | 30 +++++----- >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_tcf.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_verbs.c | 59 ++++++++++--------- >>>>> 5 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Series applied to next-net-mlx, thanks. >>>> Need to add the missing VLAN limitation of the "pop always to non-uplink" >>> on a separate commit, don't want to stall the entire series. >>> >>> Hi Shahaf, >>> >>> These are fixing mlx5 patches which are merged very recently, that is why I >>> tried to squash these to original commit. This is both for more clean git >>> history and to have correct Fixes information in commit logs. >> >> I am not sure I agree here. There was a feature which was accepted and later >> on it had some bug fixes. >> I think it is better to separate between the two, because: >> 1. I don't think it spams that much the git history >> 2. if the small fix raised a different bug it will be easier to bisect and >> track it rather than trying to check what is wrong on the big feature patch > > I would agree but for this case original feature is too fresh. I think it is > opportunity to merge it into original feature. Eventually final code will be > same, if there is a bug it will be in both ways, just to improve the history. > > And I didn't understand why it is better to "fix the fix" instead of merge the > fix to the original feature and "fix the feature" if the fix is wrong. > > Also this "fix the fix" chains may make reading/understanding original code > harder in the future. > >> >>> >>> I can able to squash: 1/7, 2/7 & 4/7 >>> >>> But 4 are still remaining, main reason is they fixes more than one commit so >>> not easy to squash into one. >>> >>> I won't merge remaining ones for now, can you please rebase them on top of >>> next-net, and try to arrange in a way to squash into next-net, if not able >>> to >>> make we can get them as it is. >> >> If it is not critical for you, I suggest we take them as is. It will require >> some work to re-arrange them + test again. >> Let me know. > > No it is not critical, but again patchset doesn't look like too big, so if it > is > not too much effort I prefer squashing them. And as a final result code should > be exact same, so testing effort shouldn't change but re-arrange takes > effort, I > already did a few of them for you...
All squashed except from 6/7 & "7/7 partially", I can confirm final code has not changed but please double check latest next-net head.
