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 7A6ED44080; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:24:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BF1402BA; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:24:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f53.google.com (mail-oo1-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CC14021E for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:24:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5b27ce83663so1562282eaf.0 for ; Mon, 20 May 2024 21:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1716265445; x=1716870245; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=lsw0dBT5F5UBDMSvx0NVoDXyqoCTgdxsLLCuqDRYrmw=; b=Xl3854X9wA14XCIYjWo1+vkzNBiQwQhBJIs9Pl7BW1s2fZ9ZLjlX5qJzsS16cJ2evZ pEpsdqU56VOtoTDk/H7Fl+4hX880mt55pX41xS+Brw5GybJVB4dQdCiKROFBdBh6HXJC qSlFp5PYDSKx4BMGaTYlWw98zYqwEYBIbOtl0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716265445; x=1716870245; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lsw0dBT5F5UBDMSvx0NVoDXyqoCTgdxsLLCuqDRYrmw=; b=LFcAPMY6Gj9RQ/ZU6sV3jZv/Jq0ORgOrLN2G/nX4W967aO05MdO3ZGdd1Bl6EEjv1e PvF7O/OSVc+2r1RjgCMKGaSo2Mqdja5M8fq+vF/Q7sAg13dUP3e2LAgqpGSvPUc1MHXF 1s6tH5sFWfmS8bGfZXtTHWwUFFv8TQOMX8meDsNFI0Yg7dW2HFiEu+XSCzw2QcX40zuL L1cXwIVACqgNFLXKeH6kGiFzF/iWNX9wCqWzevtKrsHLmEfidDIXYx5cxRbzl8o7I64N SOqzsBIdf9h1xRVVxOqHStEctppvV043Wrd/3I4whWQoMt9ET/BBHjb+JtOyFzK1qpIm SnHQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV3EUmhQ+2ZsRLAV1oEpys3QXKRFBnNYULDP3fY313lJj3ybaFLSEOwIvn5q8sf8XHr8KFCmyacxUF0S9g= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywl611KZkeJgQUaif9txgEZDquEWWbxNET4Y3W1Uz5P+KdfNx97 YueN9z+DDc0CeXd9fq0ugCpMvH5SV14hM7ha22O9PLF7xYR2uTqLvrt+s4EvTNKNBS0R1tcVyLW vfeRtQIG/8RMzGviKiOm8O5dIteTJP5ekRZcgaw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF9aOhYUEaHp5hUYg5rUwCNvhZhSQDinOjo+ZqGol2XvMzXIsiHB3igLIkeSi9Ze1N7Q0h0ABTA82mAZ4uaQH4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:826:b0:5b3:34aa:430a with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5b334aa43f6mr8013336eaf.7.1716265444780; Mon, 20 May 2024 21:24:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240130034925.44869-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240502213618.11391-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240502213618.11391-8-stephen@networkplumber.org> <6bb00014-b2ee-4fc9-bdfd-7583e172d3e2@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <6bb00014-b2ee-4fc9-bdfd-7583e172d3e2@amd.com> From: Patrick Robb Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 00:23:53 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/12] net/tap: use libbpf to load new BPF program To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Christian Ehrhardt , dpdklab , Aaron Conole , dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 1:49=E2=80=AFPM Ferruh Yigit = wrote: > > @Patric, I assume test environment also doesn't have 'libbpf', version: > '>=3D 1.0' which we need to test this feature. > Is it possible to update test environment to justify this dependency? > Hi, the libbpf version on our Ubuntu 22.04 container images is 0.5.0. I can check for our baremetal servers also, but I figure they will be the same. It sounds like the subsequent conversation is suggesting this upgrade is not viable anyhow, but to address the question in terms of Community Lab methodology, yes we are happy to modify our environments or images in any way if the community wants, but we try to run testing without upgrading the core packages the distro ships with. I.e. we would not run testing with CentOS 7 today, as it ships with gcc 4.8.5 (not supported for DPDK), even though technically we could upgrade gcc to a new version and meet all the DPDK dependencies. But yes I see Stephen ran from a 24.04 VM and validated the build with the new libbpf. By the way, I was wondering recently whether it was appropriate to add an Ubuntu 24.04 environment to the Community Lab immediately, or if it's premature in some sense. I don't want to derail this thread with that question, but if anyone is interested in this coverage going online, please write to the CI mailing list saying so.