[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] osm/osm_mcast_mgr.c: coredump in ofed_1_2

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:07 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 08:43 Thu 27 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:47 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > > On 06:57 Thu 27 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 15:42 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > > > > On 13:51 Wed 26 Dec     , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Sasha,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Protecting against possible NULL returned by osm_node_get_remote_node().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please apply this fix to branch ofed_1_2 only.
> > > > > > It appears that this coredump has already been fixed for ofed_1_3.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Applied to ofed_1_2. Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Which ofed_1_2 tree ?
> > > 
> > >   ofed_1_2 branch of git://git.openfabrics.org/~sashak/management
> > > 
> > > > BTW, up to now, such patches have been rejected saying OFED 1.2 (for
> > > > OpenSM) was not being maintained. Is there now a change of policy on
> > > > this ?
> > > 
> > > Not really. As far as I remember it was first explicit patch for 1.2.
> > 
> > I don't think that's the case but has been for quite a while now since a
> > number of 1.2 patches were "rejected" as being 1.2 and in fact there was
> > some explicit email on whether this was to be done or not and the answer
> > was a resounding NO.
> 
> I may be wrong about it, but IIRC it is all about outstanding counter
> update fix in error path in the vendor layer, the patch was for the
> master, and yes - I didn't want to backport it to 1.2 branch for "use
> master, not 1.2" reason.

There were other patches I supplied, etc. I don't think it was just the
outstanding counter fix but others too.

> > I can dig out the emails if this is really needed.
> > 
> > > I don't backport non critical fixes and improvements from master to 1.2
> > > - that is true.
> > 
> > There were a number of fixes originally supplied for 1.2 up ported to
> > 1.3. Guess you could always consider them non critical although I would
> > beg to differ on some of those.
> 
> Always - no, but in general I prefer to run master in the field.

Not everyone has that luxury (and master has not even shipped as 1.3
yet). I tried to get this changed but seems no one else shares this
issue. As I said before, the implication of this is that 1.2 is not
officially supported based on this policy (although there are fixes
going into 1.2 as 1.2.5 is still "live").

-- Hal

> Sasha