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 551F3A0C4C; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:49:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D762641257; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f51.google.com (mail-io1-f51.google.com [209.85.166.51]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3C541238 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id g22so27817619iom.1 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:49:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T6QgRPVVp0IqUggfdEb/HBRlNGXbiIKFQXHTN5TZ/hI=; b=KH3H1S2MCuKTkqTfh9aXtvANvP6r7RHFhaJNYn0u3hnlkPXxsKDu2eMVmucA+ZanjO c82Y1HmGZCFIbXqU+6Er32jkUR7UnG+LEkXQpxkW6PP7NzSwOhIvCWIvRcsqmxMXwVFQ PmYbxumgd3qGM6AiCZLgi4bIE+y0RJlgTVi7k= 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; bh=T6QgRPVVp0IqUggfdEb/HBRlNGXbiIKFQXHTN5TZ/hI=; b=kuig0gjYU6T9CeFQIyF8fBiPAlA1QuqPavZyISeghevSqftIcY3jHGjKpqJvElcG/8 ZqyQW2oF1kp4e2ocrWDb6udb6lhri7/xQdj5LWmiT823Xd4fFiwvaDZPhgdgitU3AYcl 48xkfgs4+yh+ulJPRQrBJWgqtK+BY7KROJhNsX4GcYobczXF/QT3+4/UFT8s81D3VKnm Z7XFJQ37yGp60bUyW/kZGn2SwIKaA41gDkheRrGkgV2UBRD4gfF75SVNJAthkc2B5/Qp R5VUhB7079IjYbIlkK/mdgQvaAHuLGV5GXiBkZ87I9tUB65xNRrgl55FQCwRZcn4vq1+ Y2JQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53251xO+DnGjcfjv/ilY5xup6HnasfKOEP/hOImBeLtKlIBHUaAE Ct0rzlMOzYmNbkU3sVA6pvH3paLBQwX9X6jwMgXHoA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywO+vqIIft6gl2Jpy1bhQxJv+2/3qbppa0ZIg4WTBndFR4c7n7ImREvmor9nx0d+gXbSTDlPrdCtfqquXnTu8= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8154:: with SMTP id f20mr3742285ioo.89.1626191377711; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2874531.2S3dPSLiCe@thomas> <27681980-611c-21ce-b9d1-eb7c49c79482@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <27681980-611c-21ce-b9d1-eb7c49c79482@redhat.com> From: Lance Richardson Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: Kevin Traynor Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "rasland@nvidia.com" , "Ajit Khaparde (ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com)" , "aconole@redhat.com" , "bruce.richardson@intel.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "mdr@ashroe.eu" , nd Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000006c73f405c7032fa8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RHEL 7 support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" --0000000000006c73f405c7032fa8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 5:48 AM Kevin Traynor wrote: > > On 12/07/2021 18:34, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like to open a discussion about RHEL 7 support in DPDK. > >> How long do we want to support it in new DPDK versions? > >> Can we drop RHEL 7 support starting DPDK 21.11? > > I think the concerns were from Redhat and Intel. > > > > I think it's fine to drop from a DPDK distro package view. The DPDK > package in RHEL7 won't be updated to new main releases anymore. > > It's not quite as clear for a user compiling their own DPDK. CentOS7 is > in maintenance mode until mid 2024 and will only get security or > critical fixes. > > You could still have a user on CentOS7 compiling their own DPDK from the > latest tarballs. It feels like an unlikely combination but maybe someone > knows of a user like that. > > As the distro version won't get latest software packages, it seems > reasonable that latest DPDK is not supported either, but there would > need to be some advance warning. > > 20.11 LTS will provide bugfix/security that should be ok on CentOS7 > until Jan 2023. > > >> > >> If we decide to drop RHEL 7 support, does it mean we can generally use > >> standard C11 atomics? > > What is the next RHEL version we support officially? > > RHEL8 is supported. > > > If we adopt C11 atomic APIs, we need to think about windows support too. > > > >> > >> What other benefits or impacts can you think about? > >> > > > Are the issues with continuing to support RHEL 7 all related to the default gcc version in RHEL 7 (the structure initialization to {0} issue and lack of etc. apply to 4.8 but not 4.9+), or are there also lib/kernel issues? The minimum supported gcc version is already documented to be 4.9+, which seems to rule out RHEL 7 unless a newer version of gcc is used (which is easy to do by installing one of the "software collection" toolset packages, not sure if that is a valid option to suggest). --0000000000006c73f405c7032fa8--