On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:53:44PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:03:41AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:35:38AM -0700, Gerd Rausch wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 16/06/2020 05.08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > >> I considered backporting commit 8966e28d2e40c ("IB/ipoib: Use NAPI in UD/TX flows")
> > > >> with all the dependencies it may have a considerably higher risk
> > > >> than just arming the TX CQ.
> > > >
> > > > 90% of the time when we apply a patch that does NOT match the upstream
> > > > tree, it has a bug in it and needs to have another fix or something
> > > > else.
> > > >
> > > > So please, if at all possible, stick to the upstream tree, so
> > > > backporting the current patches are the best thing to do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jason,
> > >
> > > With Mellanox writing and fixing the vast majority of the code found
> > > in IB/IPoIB, do you or one of your colleagues want to look into this?
> > >
> > > It would be considerably less error-prone if the authors of that code
> > > did that more risky work of backporting.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, Mellanox also has the regression tests to ensure that everything
> > > still works after this re-write as it did before.
> >
> > Please approach your Mellanox FAE representatives, they will know how to
> > handle it internally.
>
> Ah, so you all don't care about any IB fixes for 4.14 and older kernels
> anymore? If so, great, please let us know so we will not do any
> backporting anymore, that will save us time!
Greg,
This is not what I said. As a Mellanox employee, I can't commit for any
internal resources, the FAE path is a standard way for our customers
to get proper attention.
Thanks
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
