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 67D67A0548 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:50:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FDA140E5B; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:50:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B309B40040 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:50:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com ([209.85.160.198]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lOHCY-0002kE-6C for stable@dpdk.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:50:22 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id m11so11220093qtx.19 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:50:22 -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=sPR7RnIYOsS6/ScjXq1PU41nlo4gUMhLJaVGBSoDUzo=; b=g3hYKQVhrfJym+8NjcsFIsGkBx0s+Z5Ekr1teCeWvlDkLUlGPFskS/anMbFLlPZB59 5ItbXf1dDj1NYFXDMYNL/6r4tzP8l6DNWg9G77Br3YH03JX6Dw9ERvZyk3/jcrwK3fri /9nQamIU8EaHRL6YWEQv4j+/KzNVz89DsxEhHULeaao2xYWAXeFTJc39nSLJ+NoGM8Ht tOGbPtFI7itzgSKEaZYwh/Cu7EzSZNFbSSIa3uTtJlI5DItMlCGk4bhejCs98QXpc7BV 2FLNeamWt0rTyYzi5r7hM9pABrIdaAZkj2Dr3eSZ9TFb9KWjVgCdjaXr5FE/AJzcrsF2 ABxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Liv2sYXntaH5+tye816XYGVKX1KUk8LTzFhxYZllZdLId3R5A +jaT6lY9F/oRNAQgW3CvpxKt/IgwYg8HfFQIMqutZd8p8kHMgMMtCAjP/u42iv4OO9gT9d2mHGH ZZS5LGcPsiywiBTK3Hrlfjod5amCFG64ck4nHMumy X-Received: by 2002:a37:d8e:: with SMTP id 136mr10244487qkn.114.1616406621180; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIFvjP5m1MWW8XUHGRE5HWeN1HRzRU07y5ir4Day5/uZY8DRJIorIHhndzGQsTcGgf2/DSkVOMgXrhWUn1q7s= X-Received: by 2002:a37:d8e:: with SMTP id 136mr10244474qkn.114.1616406620938; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:50:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200818181222.8462-1-bluca@debian.org> <20200901124747.GB1047@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <673266d4-3be7-dffb-daa6-019fd85ed4b2@ovn.org> In-Reply-To: From: Christian Ehrhardt Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:49:54 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Pai G, Sunil" Cc: Ilya Maximets , "Stokes, Ian" , "Govindharajan, Hariprasad" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Luca Boccassi , "stable@dpdk.org" , dev , James Page , Thomas Monjalon 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:25 PM Pai G, Sunil wrote: > > Hi Christian, Ilya > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ilya Maximets > > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:18 PM > > To: Pai G, Sunil ; Christian Ehrhardt > > ; Stokes, Ian ; > > Ilya Maximets ; Govindharajan, Hariprasad > > > > Cc: Richardson, Bruce ; Luca Boccassi > > ; stable@dpdk.org; dev ; James Page > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test > > > > 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. 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 d= on't think that gains us that much. > > Since we already have a revert of revert, revert of revert of revert do= esn'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 OVS later o= n. > > >> > > >> But for that we'd need a hint which OVS changes that would need to b= e. > > >> 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=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 c= herry- > > pick and re-check all of this again. > > I agree, we had more fixes on top of this. It would be risky to cherry-pi= ck. > So it might be a better option to revert. I agree, as far as I assessed the situation it would mean the revert of the following list. And since that is a lot of "reverts" in the string, to be clear it means th= at 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 for static build"" deebf95239 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: move pkg-config file creation"= " a3bd9a34bf Revert "Revert "build: always link whole DPDK static libraries"" d4bc124438 Revert "Revert "devtools: test static linkage with pkg-config"" But to avoid going back&forth I'd prefer to have a signed-off on that 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) And finally, I wonder if I'd just push those to the 19.11 git branch OR sho= uld also release a 19.11.8 with just those changes sometime soon - opinions? > > For users stable releases should be > > transparent, i.e. should not have disruptive changes that will break th= eir > > 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=3D19.11&ofs=3D550 > > >> [2]: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.htm= l > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > Sunil > > > --=20 Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd