Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/mlx5: fix tunnel offload private items location

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/25/2021 6:07 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Dim 25 avr 2021, à 19:01, Gregory Etelson a écrit :
>> Hello Thomas,
>>   
>>> Dim 25 avr 2021, à 17:57, Gregory Etelson a écrit :
>>>> Tunnel offload API requires application to query PMD for specific flow
>>>> items and actions. Application uses these PMD specific elements to
>>>> build flow rules according to the tunnel offload model.
>>>> The model does not restrict private elements location in a flow rule,
>>>> but the current MLX5 PMD implementation expects that tunnel offload
>>>> rule will begin with PMD specific elements.
>>>> The patch removes that placement limitation in MLX5 PMD.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 4ec6360de37d ("net/mlx5: implement tunnel offload")
>>>
>>> Cc: stable must be just after the Fixes line.
>>>
>>> There is a testpmd patch in the same series, is it OK to be merged in mlx
>>> tree?
>>
>> The tunnel offload model can be complicated.
>> The testpmd patch that comes with this one emphasizes how application
>> can construct a flow rule without placement restrictions.
>> I think that both patches should be merged.
> 
> That's not the question.
> One patch should be merged in mlx tree, while the other one should target next-net.
> In such a situation, quite often we split in different series.
> For this case, it's up to Raslan and Ferruh to agree on how to proceed.
> 

I am OK to get both to next-net, as long as driver patch is Ack'ed.

It seems there is a relation between driver and testpmd patch, but I am trying 
to figure out how tightly they are coupled, which may be sign of something wrong.