Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

Leon Romanovsky
2019-07-16T09:50:13Z

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:09:17PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > >
> > > > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > > > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
> > >
> > > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> > > means.
> >
> > Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
> > Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
> > which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
> > them many times.
>
> It depends, it's your call, if you think you deserve the credit, sure,
> add it. If you are just doing basic "review" where you tell people what
> needs to be done better, that's probably not what you need to do here.

I'll probably not use this and not because I don't deserve credit, but
because it looks ridiculously to me to see my name repeated N times for
my work.

>
> One example, where I just added myself to a patch happened last week
> where the developer submitted one solution, I took it and rewrote the
> whole implementation (from raw kobjects to using the driver model). The
> original author got the "From:" and I got a Co-developed-by line.

In old days, we simply changed Author field if changes were above some
arbitrary threshold (usually half of the original patch) and added SOB.

Why wasn't this approach enough?

>
> Does that help?

Yes, and it makes me wonder when we will need to hire compliance officer
who will review all our upstreamed patches to comply with more and more
bureaucracy.

Thanks.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h