[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/hns3: use the correct HiSilicon copyright

[Min Hu (Connor)]

在 2021/4/2 16:07, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> On 4/2/2021 2:45 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2021/4/1 22:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>> On 4/1/2021 9:53 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>> According to the suggestion of our legal department,
>>>> to standardize the copyright license of our code to
>>>> avoid potential copyright risks, we make a unified
>>>> modification to the "Hisilicon", which was nonstandard,
>>>> in the main modules we maintain.
>>>>
>>>> We change it to "HiSilicon", which is consistent with
>>>> the terms used on the following official website:
>>>> https://www.hisilicon.com/en/terms-of-use.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 565829db8b8f ("net/hns3: add build and doc infrastructure")
>>>> Fixes: 952ebacce4f2 ("net/hns3: support SVE Rx")
>>>> Fixes: e31f123db06b ("net/hns3: support NEON Tx")
>>>> Fixes: c09c7847d892 ("net/hns3: support traffic management")
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is backport not requested intentionally?
>>>
>> Yes, we think this is just spelling bug, which does not affect
>> functionality, so there is no need to backport.
>>
>> By the way, Is there any standard for which patch should be backported?
> 
> We are backporting fixes, unless the fix doesn't apply to an old version 
> somehow, like some patches fixes problems coming from external 
> components, like problem comes with new version of FW that is not used 
> by LTS code etc..., these doesn't need to be backported to old versions.
> 
> Personally I am for backporting as much as possible, even syntax 
> changes, because in long term they may cause conflicts and cause trouble 
> merging actual fixes. Also for someone who gets a diff between latest 
> and LTS version code, it helps to reduce the noise.
> 
Agree with you, done in v2, thanks.
> cc'ed LTS maintainers for more authoritative response, at the end of the 
> day they get the patches to the stable trees.
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29 at huawei.com>
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
> 
> .