From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB7843D04; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:47:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2637402B9; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:47:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827A14029F for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:47:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710946032; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Mmz+fusiOSS7aJL6HHoVK/YkuvIL1IaO1TpGh1R7Ikg=; b=LrSYKNfs4lFeckVb1iYW08ffEW6LTW3DIw/QkxAmfS04wxLJGng2tlQmo+VTwFUSfJ03YW 28WW0oC8Ac+JM1c/3UwVCZDFkEEvF+9+VfM11ls/4oYPrfW3YXtLSpS8xqV69UYsoDJmWh +2UFO5Tfvu2NhiO7C0z137QtrHOW9kU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-317-BxNUtmLePLm30W6mWJHfIA-1; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:47:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BxNUtmLePLm30W6mWJHfIA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 627AF89CA2F; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2279F1C060CE; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:47:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Adam Hassick Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Patrick Robb , David Marchand , Kevin Traynor Subject: Re: OVS Testing in the Community Lab References: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:47:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Adam Hassick's message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:04:40 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Adam Hassick writes: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 3:28=E2=80=AFPM Aaron Conole = wrote: >> >> Adam Hassick writes: >> >> > Hi Aaron, >> > >> > I'm working on enabling OVS testing in the community lab. Currently, I >> > have a compile test set up which follows the steps defined in the OVS >> > documentation (https://docs.openvswitch.org/en/latest/intro/install/dp= dk/) >> > and consumes the shared libraries produced by the DPDK native GCC >> > compile test that we run. This way, we can save some compute resources >> > by not compiling DPDK an additional time. However, this will mean that >> > the OVS compile test will not run if the DPDK compile test fails in >> > any environment, but I think that behavior is acceptable. What do you >> > think? >> >> That is acceptable. However, we probably want to be a bit careful about >> it because as DPDK changes, there may be some kind of API break that OVS >> needs to know about. In that case, we might consider using the >> dpdk-latest branch of ovs rather than ovs master. > > Ok, when running periodic tests on main we will use the dpdk-latest > branch of OVS. Do you think we should include this test for incoming > patches or just run periodic on main? If the OVS maintainers are > interested in seeing these results, then we could send result emails > to one of their mailing lists as well. > >> > The OVS compile test has passed successfully with DPDK main, which is = promising. >> > >> > I'm unsure what the scope of our testing should be as well. Should we >> > run the compile tests on all of our VM/container environments (to get >> > good distro coverage), or just a few? And should we only run periodic >> > testing on main or include LTS, next-* branches? >> >> This is a good question. OVS sticks with LTS branches, mostly, because >> those are the ones which are "stable" from a maintenance standpoint. So >> we're probably mostly going to build from dpdk stable branches. > > I see that OVS has a table of compatibility for DPDK LTS and OVS > releases. Maybe we can start with periodic testing between these > compatible releases and move forward from there. That would be good. BTW - this used to run at the lab, you can see the presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZhQY_4SrvmI >> > Regards, >> > Adam >>