On Wed, 2021-10-13 at 09:21 -0400, Ben Magistro wrote: > Hello, > > Replying here as I'm a little stuck and hoping someone has some > advice for what the next steps should be. > > Going from the list above of how to get this noticed by the LTS > maintainer(s), the patch, well commit message + subject were revised > and resent to the list > (https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211012141752.6376-1- > konce...@gmail.com/) but the i40evf has since been removed from main > already so options 1 & 2 seem to no longer apply. This seems to put > us into option 3 of a backported patch? Is it just a subject line > change then or can this be pulled out of the "not applicable" pile > still?
Hi Ben, Since it doesn't apply to upstream, option 3 should be good enough, just add [20.11] or [19.11] as prefix and send to sta...@dpdk.org. Regards, Xueming Li > > Thanks and appreciate the advice, > > Ben Magistro > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:52 PM Ben Magistro <konce...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > Per discussions here, cc'ing stable for fix to be applied to LTS as > > i40evf is being removed from next. > > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:37 AM Xueming(Steven) Li > > <xuemi...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:43 PM > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; Kevin Traynor > > > > <ktray...@redhat.com>; Ben Magistro <konce...@gmail.com>; > > > > dev@dpdk.org; Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Luca > > > > Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Christian Ehrhardt > > > > <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> > > > > Cc: ben.magis...@trinitycyber.com; > > > > stefan.baran...@trinitycyber.com; Qi Zhang > > > > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > On 8/27/2021 7:28 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:46 PM > > > > > > To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Ben Magistro > > > > > > <konce...@gmail.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Beilei Xing > > > > > > <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com>; > > > > > > Xueming(Steven) Li > > > > > > <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > > > > > > Cc: ben.magis...@trinitycyber.com; > > > > > > stefan.baran...@trinitycyber.com; > > > > > > Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > > > > + Christian and Xueming > > > > > > > > > > > > On 26/08/2021 11:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/25/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Magistro wrote: > > > > > > > > The i40evf driver is not initializing the eth_dev > > > > > > > > attribute which > > > > > > > > can result in a nullptr dereference. Changes were > > > > > > > > modeled after the > > > > > > > > iavf_dev_init() per suggestion from the mailing > > > > > > > > list[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021- > > > > > > > > August/217251.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Magistro <konce...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i40evf will be removed in this release. But I guess it > > > > > > > helps for > > > > > > > stable releases to first merge the fixes and later > > > > > > > removed it, not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Luca, @Kevin, do you prefer this patch directly to > > > > > > > stable repos, or > > > > > > > through the main repo? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll leave to Luca/Xueming and Christian to say if they > > > > > > have a > > > > > > preference, but I'd guess either way is fine from stable > > > > > > view once it has fixes/stable tags or LTS patch prefix (it > > > > > > doesn't have any of > > > > these at present). > > > > > > > > > > Yes, any option will make it being noticed by LTS maintainer: > > > > > 1. patches accepted by main with "fix" in subject 2. patches > > > > > accepted > > > > > by main with "cc: sta...@dpdk.org" in commit message 3. > > > > > patches > > > > > backported to LTS, sent to stable maillist with LTS prefix, > > > > > for example "[20.11]" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Xueming, > > > > > > > > But is there a preferences for this case? > > > > > > > > The i40evf will be removed from main repo, is it better > > > > 1- first apply the fix and remove the component from main (I > > > > assume fix still will be bacported to LTS in this case) or > > > > 2- remove the i40evf from main (without fix), apply the fix > > > > directly to the LTS. > > > > > > Both options will work, the first is more easy and common I > > > guess, both 19.11 LTS and 20.11 LTS maintainer can find it. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > ferruh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i40evf won't be tested in the main anyway, since it would > > > > > > > be removed > > > > > > > before -rc1 testing, so it looks like there won't be any > > > > > > > difference from testing point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c > > > > > > > > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c > > > > > > > > index 0cfe13b7b2..ccdce9a16a 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c > > > > > > > > @@ -1564,8 +1564,9 @@ i40evf_dev_alarm_handler(void > > > > > > > > *param) static > > > > > > > > int i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) { > > > > > > > > - struct i40e_hw *hw > > > > > > > > - = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(eth_dev- > > > > > > > > >data->dev_private); > > > > > > > > + struct i40e_adapter *adapter = > > > > > > > > + I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev- > > > > > > > > >data->dev_private); > > > > > > > > + struct i40e_hw *hw = > > > > > > > > I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(adapter); > > > > > > > > struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = > > > > > > > > RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(eth_dev); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE(); > > > > > > > > @@ -1596,11 +1597,14 @@ i40evf_dev_init(struct > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) > > > > > > > > hw->device_id = pci_dev->id.device_id; > > > > > > > > hw->subsystem_vendor_id = pci_dev- > > > > > > > > >id.subsystem_vendor_id; > > > > > > > > hw->subsystem_device_id = pci_dev- > > > > > > > > >id.subsystem_device_id; > > > > > > > > + hw->bus.bus_id = pci_dev->addr.bus; > > > > > > > > hw->bus.device = pci_dev->addr.devid; > > > > > > > > hw->bus.func = pci_dev->addr.function; > > > > > > > > hw->hw_addr = (void *)pci_dev- > > > > > > > > >mem_resource[0].addr; > > > > > > > > hw->adapter_stopped = 1; > > > > > > > > hw->adapter_closed = 0; > > > > > > > > + hw->back = > > > > > > > > I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data- > > > > > > > > >dev_private); > > > > > > > > + adapter->eth_dev = eth_dev; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if(i40evf_init_vf(eth_dev) != 0) { > > > > > > > > PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Init vf failed"); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
