Hi Ferruh,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 5:10 AM > To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] ethdev: device configuration > enhancement > > On 11/8/2018 6:25 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > On 11/8/18 5:09 AM, Wenzhuo Lu wrote: > >> The new configuration is stored during the process. > >> But the process may fail. We better rolling the configuration back as > >> the new one doesn't take effect. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > > > > I would say that the order is wrong. We should fix this bug first and > > the changeset should have appropriate Fixes tags. > > I think this bug is older and should be fixed first. > > Then the second bug should be fixed without this one present. > > Logically suggested order make sense I agree, but both patches are fixing > defect and order won't help backporting them [1], so no strong opinion > about order. > > Overall this patch should be converted into fix defect with proper Fixes tag > independent from order. > > Wenzhuo, what do you think? I would like to get this one for rc3! > > > [1] > This is older defect but I believe can't be backported cleanly into older > stable > trees because of "PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters" patches in the middle. > Downside having this first prevents other patch to backported to closer > stable trees. > > Also having this patch first will require additional return value update in > some checks (nb_tx_q && nb_rx_q checks) in next patch, so for separation > fixes this order is clearer. Yes, to my opinion, these 2 are separate patches. Actually there's no order between them. I put them together only because we have had a mixed discussion. I didn't put a fix prefix because it's hard to add a fix tag for it. We know it has the problem from the beginning, so after some changes this patch cannot be backported.
