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 C075144088; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:07:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F043402EE; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:07:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA6B4025C for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:07:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1716304024; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9Aw2QRDX7ehUXiI3BGqP5LDQVfwLYRN/Lj12CwB3r78=; b=KEzqlNVTU0ULson/3G78h3xuASFT9RDJHURq4599XiI3O7AU2Y3BP1s7zHPSQGsCkPB1Et Fhez+8V6kO6d14plgVw0BCUbOemN4Ddei+unmcsi41MD6/IJZ4m0igwdsGNjhu3vZyphdu YjyjwiVX6xlGhgSwnQU6pPJuPvq3FLg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-449-ReHUk0ZcPkiGdu-iGNhTEQ-1; Tue, 21 May 2024 11:07:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ReHUk0ZcPkiGdu-iGNhTEQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FBCE1C29EA2; Tue, 21 May 2024 15:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTRH0061144 (dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4BDD105480A; Tue, 21 May 2024 15:06:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Patrick Robb , Stephen Hemminger , Christian Ehrhardt , dpdklab , dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/12] net/tap: use libbpf to load new BPF program In-Reply-To: (Ferruh Yigit's message of "Tue, 21 May 2024 14:46:59 +0100") 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> Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 11:06:59 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com 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 Ferruh Yigit writes: > On 5/21/2024 5:23 AM, Patrick Robb wrote: >> 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? >>> >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> But yes I see Stephen ran from a 24.04 VM and validated the build with >> the new libbpf. >>=20 >> 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. >> > > If we can have an Ubuntu 24.04 environment, this addresses the libbpf > testing concern. I think it would be good to add as well. 24.04 will be an LTS, so it should be support for long time. > @Christian can comment better, but as far as I can see although upgrade > from previous LTS is not supported yet, it is possible to install Ubuntu > 24.04 from scratch. There is a sortof procedure to do it by going via 23.10 first, but it isn't probably the best approach. I guess installing from scratch may be the best approach.