On Tuesday 10 October 2017 09:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 10/10/2017 16:05, santosh:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On Tuesday 10 October 2017 01:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 10/10/2017 09:01, Shreyansh Jain:
>>>> Fixes: 5b22cf744689 ("bus/dpaa: introducing FMan configurations")
>>>> Fixes: 37f9b54bd3cf ("net/dpaa: support Tx and Rx queue setup")
>>> These lines should appear after the explanation.
>>>
>>>> Cc: shreyansh.j...@nxp.com
>>>>
>>>> With the IOVA auto detection changes, bus scan is performed before
>>>> memory initialization. DPAA bus scan must not use rte_malloc in
>>>> its path.
>>> If the scan has been broken by IOVA detection, you should reference
>>> IOVA in Fixes line, not DPAA.
>>>
>> hmm.. IOVA not breaking scanning!, Refer this [1].
> It is breaking. A break is a behaviour or interface change.
> When moving init order, you break behaviour.
> I don't say it is bad.
> I say only it is the primary cause of this change.disagree!. Why so: Legacy PCI/bus scan implementation don't use rte_ lib as they don;t need to.. Refer [1] for detailing. However, dpaa is and that we agree to align with legacy. So its a open question : Who fixes who? > The Fixes: line is also a help when backporting patches. > This patch needs to be backported only if IOVA patch is also backported. IMO, would prefer backport: rather fixes: tag in above case, more verbose I guess. >> We(me/hemant) has discussed about same on thread[1] and agreed to >> do respective changes and remove rte_ memory dependency from code base >> at scan time.. >> >> Thanks. >> >> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/26764/ > You already discussed about this issue, fine. > > Santosh, as you insist to talk again about it, one more comment: > > It is very good to have discussions on the mailing list. Thanks, That makes me think that I didn't break, indeed did what was needed in agnostic way. > It would be perfect if all these informations were explicitly given > in the commit messages. > For instance, saying that the scan cannot use rte_malloc anymore is > a valuable tip for other developpers. Agree, but scan wasn;t using for PCI/bus case.. so one can;t be sure whether to mention or not..
