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 A25BEA0561 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:48:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BA6140EA0; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:48:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (relay9-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.199]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4322C140E8F; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:48:08 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 78.45.89.65 Received: from [192.168.1.23] (ip-78-45-89-65.net.upcbroadband.cz [78.45.89.65]) (Authenticated sender: i.maximets@ovn.org) by relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0E02FF80B; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:48:05 +0000 (UTC) To: "Pai G, Sunil" , Christian Ehrhardt , "Stokes, Ian" , Ilya Maximets , Hariprasad Govindharajan Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" , Luca Boccassi , "stable@dpdk.org" , dev , James Page References: <20200818181222.8462-1-bluca@debian.org> <20200901124747.GB1047@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Ilya Maximets Message-ID: <673266d4-3be7-dffb-daa6-019fd85ed4b2@ovn.org> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:48:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On 3/18/21 2:36 PM, Pai G, Sunil wrote: > Hey Christian, > > > >> back in 19.11.4 these DPDK changes were not picked up as they have broken >> builds as discussed here. >> Later on the communication was that all this works fine now and thereby >> Luca has "reverted the reverts" in 19.11.6 [1]. >> >> But today we were made aware that still no OVS 2.13 builds against a DPDK >> that has those changes. >> Not 2.13.1 as we have it in Ubuntu nor (if it needs some OVS changes >> backported) the recent 2.13.3 does build. >> They still fail with the very same issue I reported [2] back then. >> >> Unfortunately I have just released 19.11.7 so I can't revert them there - but >> OTOH reverting and counter reverting every other release seems wrong >> anyway. It is wrong indeed, but the main question here is why these patches was backported to stable release in a first place? Looking at these patches, they are not actual bug fixes but more like "nice to have" features that additionally breaks the way application links with DPDK. Stuff like that should not be acceptable to the stable release without a strong justification or, at least, testing with actual applications. Since we already have a revert of revert, revert of revert of revert doesn't seem so bad. >> >> I wanted to ask if there is a set of patches that OVS would need to backport >> to 2.13.x to make this work? >> If they could be identified and prepared Distros could use them on >> 2.13.3 asap and 2.13.4 could officially release them for OVS later on. >> >> But for that we'd need a hint which OVS changes that would need to be. >> All I know atm is from the testing reports on DPDK it seems that OVS >> 2.14.3 and 2.15 are happy with the new DPDK code. > >> Do you have pointers on what 2.13.3 would need to get backported to work >> again in regard to this build issue. > > You would need to use partial contents from patch : > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/1608142365-26215-1-git-send-email-ian.stokes@intel.com/ > > If you'd like me to send patches which would work with 2.13, 2.14, I'm ok with that too.[keeping only those parts from patch which fixes the issue you see.] > But we must ensure it doesn’t cause problems for OVS too. > Your thoughts Ilya ? We had more fixes on top of this particular patch and I'd like to not cherry-pick and re-check all of this again. For users stable releases should be transparent, i.e. should not have disruptive changes that will break their ability to build with version of a library that they would like to use. What are exact changes we're talking about? Will it still be possible to build OVS with older versions of a stable 19.11 if these changes applied? > > >> >> [1]: http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/log/?h=19.11&ofs=550 >> [2]: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.html > > > Thanks and regards, > Sunil >