24/05/2022 15:42, Zhang, Qi Z: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 18/05/2022 02:03, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > From: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com> > > > > > > > > Some SFP link partners exhibit a disinclination to autonegotiate > > > > with X550 configured in SFI mode. This patch enables a manual AN-37 > > > > restart to work around the problem. > > > > > > This fix for some specific hardware in base code, unfortunately Intel > > > DPDK team don't have the device and the knowledge to approve this, > > > > That's why the work is collaborative. > > You should get and trust knowledge from partners. > > The only concerns of a maintainer should be: > > - good feature design > > - good code quality > > These are the questions we can't answer, > we don't understand the design, > what is " change mode enforcement rules to hybrid " means, > what is manual AN-37 here and what those numbers in the patch means.
So these are the basic questions you should ask to be made clear in the patch. That's the same for everybody: we must understand the reason and the intent of any change. > Of cause we trust knowledge from our partners, > but anyway this is an Intel product, The DPDK driver is not an Intel product. This a community effort where anyone should be able to participate. > only Intel have the right to authenticate this. What do you mean by "authenticate"? > unfortunately none of the active ixgbe DPDK maintainers and I have the > knowledge > Meanwhile if this is an issue on DPDK, > it could also be an issue on kernel driver > that's why we suggest to submit to Linux community first > where will be right people to answer above questions. Why Linux community is more able to review than DPDK, or FreeBSD, or Windows, or any other community? > > - no regression in known cases > > > > the base code is delivered by our kernel software team, I will suggest > > > you can send this to the kernel community to get the right expert to > > > review. > > > > Which kind of expert do you imagine to review? > > Intel team or Silicom people who are pushing these improvements? > > > There is another problem with asking Linux kernel change first: > > the patch will land in GPL code, bringing difficulties to move in > > BSD-licensed > > base code. > > Only if the author agree to share the copy right to Intel, > so Intel is able to re-license it to BSD as same as other base code. Yes we should be able to grant such copyright in the commit message. > > I suggest we make this process more flexible: > > 1/ a contributor sends a patch for DPDK base code > > with an explicit grant for backporting in any license. > > 2/ Intel checks that there is no DPDK regression > > 3/ patch is merged in DPDK > > 4/ Intel merges it in the internal base code > > 5/ Linux kernel team can backport the fix to Linux > > 6/ Any other OS can backport the fix in its driver > > Right now, our base code in kernel is GPL license only, > code with BSD-3-clause can't be distrusted without change our license > strategy, > so it's the same effort if someone want to backport DPDK changes to kernel > (shared the copy right to Intel) > > but I like your suggestion (if I understand correctly), > have a dual licenses in kernel base code make things smoothly > to backport from DPDK to kernel, I will feedback this. > > > Let's make the DPDK process open for everybody. > > For sure, we should.
