From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF94FA034F for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:27:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB9C4003D; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:27:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E151F4003D for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:27:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qk1-f198.google.com ([209.85.222.198]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>) id 1lOLX1-0006RR-9s for stable@dpdk.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:27:47 +0000 Received: by mail-qk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id x11so36543106qki.22 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ELpzxt0sHc05OyQbcyEmxYULl1hK2X47vC2O0P9mIcw=; b=qFLJ0rDRv2szjFPfooSD6Ustqt+pwXLDc/uq2SIQxioxH+Sd5330fyVt5WXsnLmwXg xJn9ODLyDK986lT5GlUnkxby8bX8Zs4IItgH7lxnMRGx3IO8A9zkOL/AlgZzFI5reD8H LdgwnLLulrva/EBGVPsSm46kwmK+N9hhH2qcyDIxbC7hEJmNpBZXXpgcCDEqjFouiBBP JGhr1BV5uB8MLCgWALXSZXv9ZorbVAa6P/20JetRAm0a97a2RN9jKDvHfFF9Qllrysx8 gEovLLskw1Nrqzw4oKOj+YOWgNeV3LrsFLDOxDBxSQLjDpAkPXbr3TYvbiTEuDH0YKfX tMmg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307QCnfNCKcExwguTp4L3DsS9+OBmKw3BkQg8DKoHCiBRT7rejr 7aNAI6pZ2/VClzWewtb3rp2VOIzZ4vF45WSkV4JzPbTtPUCXBNYhIqQYBVa7YIMzWYOxgHJW63Q PS3lHXUUdhYE37MtHj8mo+MzlhUKnBadLGflTWShw X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c1:: with SMTP id 184mr286663qkg.462.1616423266227; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxw8d1zb8Z++UbkmnECjMn1ta1R9mjNMgQXzzeF/czeaeBo07kebQJiAwcqFJmyIYqZHxDWnp1DrTpqvpzrGMo= X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c1:: with SMTP id 184mr286625qkg.462.1616423265816; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:27:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200818181222.8462-1-bluca@debian.org> <20210322114101.GB1440@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <7eb39330834de50d2f3ee603adcd7f5501be9a83.camel@debian.org> <11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas> In-Reply-To: <11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:27:19 +0100 Message-ID: <CAATJJ0+=6=cThxQnBNbC+UaxPP9HvkrRxbdh2hzk-SoHEwfJBQ@mail.gmail.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Pai G, Sunil" <sunil.pai.g@intel.com>, Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>, "Stokes, Ian" <ian.stokes@intel.com>, "Govindharajan, Hariprasad" <hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, James Page <james.page@canonical.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 <stable.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/> List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote= : > > 22/03/2021 12:59, Luca Boccassi: > > On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 11:41 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:49:54AM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:25 PM Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pai.g@intel.com= > wrote: > > > > > Hi Christian, Ilya > > > > > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org> > > > > > > On 3/18/21 2:36 PM, Pai G, Sunil wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Christian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snipped> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > back in 19.11.4 these DPDK changes were not picked up as t= hey 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 OV= S changes > > > > > > > > backported) the recent 2.13.3 does build. > > > > > > > > They still fail with the very same issue I reported [2] bac= k then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I have just released 19.11.7 so I can't rever= t them > > > > > > > > there - but OTOH reverting and counter reverting every othe= r release > > > > > > > > seems wrong anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is wrong indeed, but the main question here is why these pat= ches was > > > > > > backported to stable release in a first place? > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at these patches, they are not actual bug fixes but mor= e like "nice to > > > > > > have" features that additionally breaks the way application lin= ks with DPDK. > > > > > > Stuff like that should not be acceptable to the stable release = without a strong > > > > > > justification or, at least, testing with actual applications. > > > > > > > > I agree, but TBH IIRC these changes were initially by OVS people :-= ) > > > > One could chase down the old talks between Luca and the requesters,= but I don't > > > > think that gains us that much. > > > > > > > > > > Since we already have a revert of revert, revert of revert of r= evert doesn't > > > > > > seem so bad. > > > > > > > > As long as we don't extend this series, yeah > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 OV= S 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 backp= orted 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/1608142= 365- > > > > > > 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 f= ixes the issue > > > > > > you see.] But we must ensure it doesn=E2=80=99t 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. > > > > > > > > > > I agree, we had more fixes on top of this. It would be risky to c= herry-pick. > > > > > So it might be a better option to revert. > > > > > > > > I agree, as far as I assessed the situation it would mean the rever= t > > > > of the following list. > > > > And since that is a lot of "reverts" in the string, to be clear it = means that > > > > those original changes would not be present anymore in 19.11.x. > > > > > > > > f49248a990 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: prevent overlinking"" > > > > 39586a4cf0 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: improve static linking= flags"" > > > > 906e935a1f Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: output drivers first f= or > > > > static build"" > > > > deebf95239 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: move pkg-config file c= reation"" > > > > a3bd9a34bf Revert "Revert "build: always link whole DPDK static lib= raries"" > > > > d4bc124438 Revert "Revert "devtools: test static linkage with pkg-c= onfig"" > > > > > > > > But to avoid going back&forth I'd prefer to have a signed-off on th= at > > > > approach from: > > > > - Luca (for 19.11.6 which has added the changes) > > > > - Bruce (for being involved in the old&new case in general) > > > > - Thomas (for general master maintainer thoughts) > > > > > > > > > > If this is what is needed to ensure OVS can continue to use this rele= ase > > > series, then I am absolutely fine with it. > > > > This was requested by OVS, so if they don't need it anymore it's fine > > by me as well > > I am not sure to understand the full story, > but I am a bit worried that our release is dictated by > a single "user" (project using DPDK). Sure, fair to ask for more detail :-) > Please do you have links of discussion history? I ordered the events by time and added links to those occasions that I could find: July 2020 - Initial request by OVS - *1 July 2020 - Initial queuing - http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-July/024248.html September 2020 - Issues identified; changes reverted - http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.html October 2020 - Re-applying early in 19.11.6 cycle - *1 November 2020 - Tests didn't spot it with 19.11.6 as OVS 2.14.x (not the 2.13 LTS) was tested - https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-19.11/rel_notes/release_19_11.html#id16 March 2021 - Same issue re-found in >=3D19.11.6 - http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2021-March/029418.html *1 - Luca and I looked for logs, there are no links that I'd know of and Luca said it might have come up as a request during a meeting. > > -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd