On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:39:58PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:02:28AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 07:58:38AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > So, my take on the for-rc8-ness, based on the commit messages alone:
> >
> > > Bodong Wang (1):
> > > IB/core: Fix ib_wc structure size to remain in 64 bytes boundary
> >
> > No, performance optimization only, and not a regression in this cycle
> >
>
> Sorry, but it is fix to performance regression, and not optimization.
regression across multiple kernel cycles and not a regression in this
cycle. So the performance optimization needs to be justified to raise
to 'important'. There is no performance data in the commit message, so
I can't judge it as OK for for-rc
> > > Parav Pandit (1):
> > > RDMA/core: Fix avoid decoding iWarp port as RoCE
> >
> > Unknown, commit message is too short. Parav, please explain more why this
> > this is worthy of 'CC: stable' ?
>
> Parav has nothing to do with "CC: stable@", I'm the person who added it.
>
> The rationale behind it that it so basic change so it worth to have in
> stable. Also, it goes as all our countless fixes to those two series:
> Fixes: 44c58487d51a ("IB/core: Define 'ib' and 'roce' rdma_ah_attr types")
> Fixes: 7db20ecd1d97 ("IB/core: Change wc.slid from 16 to 32 bits")
Nevertheless, the commit message does not explain to me or Linus why
this is *important* - it does not talk about what user visible
consequnce there is to this bug.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
