From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA2241A85 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kwPS8J2c" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C47DC433F1; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:14:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1704755664; bh=Qm7M4TAZCE/JXikm/GtbWhwvcUkRXXYIN2AdlFytQIw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kwPS8J2cmGAj/SCxDiAXt0KGsRQVdCDoe9qQVg1KlaRMDy1G3V7grEthN64y1AwkJ nlfMRZ3W9i+qBlbXX0LtmCOhLPXRh1cmET7p6Cmh6hedQD9+VIbEXKghqMO9UQyUxd oJYKjfqorwzIICz4Xiq591kFETg5fUyJHmnbZp6UU03CcHKdVVv6jWZ7t3WPy9uFXD SYDlm4A8bL72JLiZ3wOAhwOfiCmPvvEN+0IU+5BhcG4fGSDAXXvjM7pa1zfuvybUUG tOPK5qDVHwMZfMjfx13CV6ggSnBN9PT07HbFOyHY23AgPhDVwGf9/jRWbmrgLvUSRD UQkiPhR/TNgow== Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:14:22 -0800 From: Saeed Mahameed To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: "David S. Miller" , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Saeed Mahameed , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-12-20 Message-ID: References: <20231221005721.186607-1-saeed@kernel.org> <20240104144721.1eaff202@kernel.org> <20240107171902.5f23ad0f@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240107171902.5f23ad0f@kernel.org> On 07 Jan 17:19, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:47:21 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:57:06 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: >> > Support Socket-Direct multi-dev netdev >> >> There's no documentation for any of it? >> >> $ git grep -i 'socket.direct' -- Documentation/ >> $ >> >> it's a feature many people have talked about for ever. >> I'm pretty sure there are at least 2 vendors who have >> HW support to do the same thing. Without docs everyone >> will implement is slightly differently :( > >No replies so far, and v6.8 merge window has just begun, >so let me drop this from -next for now. > But why revert ? what was wrong with the code or the current design? The current comments aren't that critical and I am sure you understand that people are on holiday vacation. We will provide the docs, but IMHO, docs could have been easily a follow up. What's the point of the upstream process if a surprise revert can be done at any point by a maintainer? This is is not the first instance, This has happened before with the management PF first iteration, at least that time you asked for a revert and we approved, but this revert came as a complete surprise.. Can we not do these reverts in such a stealthy way, this makes the whole acceptance criteria unreliable, many teams rely on things getting accepted so they plan the next steps, we have an upstream first open source policy at nVidia networking and predictability is very important to us, uncertainty especially when things are already accepted is something that is very hard for us to work with. Thanks, Saeed.