HI Yuanhan, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:34 AM > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org > > > > Cc: hemant.agra...@nxp.com; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > > > > <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; y...@fridaylinux.org; Akhil > > > > Goyal <akhil.goyal@n[Hemant] axp.com> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2] crypto/dpaa2_sec: fix the return of supported > > > > API > > > > > > > > call to dpaa2_sec_dev_configure() is made mandatory, but > > > > dpaa2_sec_pmd returns a ENOTSUP which results in device not > > > > getting > > configured. > > > > > > > > dpaa2_sec PMD does not need any further configuration to be done > > > > in dpaa2_sec_dev_configure, hence returning 0 > > > > > > > > Fixes: e5cbdfc53765 ("crypto/dpaa2_sec: add basic operations") > > > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com> > > > > > > Looks ok to me, but this is only applicable in the stable branch, so > > > no need to send it to dev@dpdk.org. > > > > Why? We already have such fix in upstream? Normally, we just pick > > upstream commits (but not patches: the emails) to stable release. > > It looks like this fix was included in > 13273250eec5 ("crypto/dpaa2_sec: support AES-GCM and CTR"). > Unfortunately, this patch should have been split into two different patches. > Since this has already been merged, I think our only way to integrate this In > 17.05.1 is by getting it separately.
In general, there may be other incidents, where a patch is only applicable for the stable tree. It may not be applicable for upstream tree due to architecture changes or other reasons. How do you want to handle such patches? e.g. in OVS, we can do it by marking the patch header with "[branch-2.6]" Regards, Hemant
