Hi David, > -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 13:43 > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com>; Matan > Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>; dpdk stable <sta...@dpdk.org> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] common/mlx5: add provider query port > support to glue library > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 2:49 PM Viacheslav Ovsiienko > <viachesl...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > The rdma-core mlx5 provider introduced the port attributes query API > > since version v35.0 - the mlx5dv_query_port routine. In order to > > support this change in the rdma-core the conditional compilation flag > > HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT_V35 is introduced by the this patch. > > > > In the OFED rdma-core version the new compatible mlx5dv_query_port > > routine was introduced as well, replacing the existing proprietary > > mlx5dv_query_devx_port routine. The proprietary routine was controlled > > in PMD code with HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT conditional flag. > > > > Currently, the OFED rdma-core library contains both versions of port > > query API. And this version is a transitional one, there are the plans > > to remove the proprietary mlx5dv_query_devx_port routine and the > > HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_DEVX_PORT flag in PMD will not work anymore. > > > > We had one more dependency on this flag in the code (for the > > mlx5dv_dr_action_create_dest_ib_port routine) and the patch fixes > > mentioned dependency also, by introducing the new dedicated > > conditional flag - HAVE_MLX5DV_DR_CREATE_DEST_IB_PORT. > > > > This patch is highly desirable to be provided in DPDK LTS releases due > > to it covers the major compatibility issue. > > This patch is a fix, yet nothing tells this story in the title.
This patch is not a fix. Actually it covers the compatibility issue, not a bug. The Upstream rdma-core was evolved, its community adopted a slightly different API version than was presented in the vendor version. Our PMD should conform both versions and we provided this patch for DPDK. > And the title does not reflect that it is a fix wrt versions of rdma-core. > Is this a build issue? or a runtime compat issue? It is not a build because we have conditional compilation and we can build PMD, but functionality is affected in severe way. > > A good title makes life easier for users and people maintaining stable > versions > of DPDK. I'm in contact with LTS maintainers about the patch, the title should not be a problem. Anyway, if you prefer the title be changed to one with "fix" word - please, let me know, I'll provide the update. With best regards, Slava
