patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.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>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:25:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7eb39330834de50d2f3ee603adcd7f5501be9a83.camel@debian.org>

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 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 don't
> > > think that gains us that much.
> > > 
> > > > > Since we already have a revert of revert, revert of revert of revert 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 OVS 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 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’t 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 cherry-pick.
> > > > 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 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 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)
> > > 
> > 
> > If this is what is needed to ensure OVS can continue to use this release
> > 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).

Please do you have links of discussion history?




  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-22 12:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-18 18:12 [dpdk-stable] " Luca Boccassi
2020-08-24 13:22 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Christian Ehrhardt
2020-08-24 13:25   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-25  9:13 ` [dpdk-stable] " Pei Zhang
2020-08-25 10:08   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Luca Boccassi
2020-08-26  2:30 ` Chen, BoX C
2020-08-26  9:50   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-27  9:47     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-08-27 10:37       ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-27 10:57         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-08-27 13:23           ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-28  4:03     ` Wang, ShougangX
2020-08-28  7:52       ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-28 14:34 ` Govindharajan, Hariprasad
2020-08-28 15:23   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-30 14:36 ` Ali Alnubani
2020-08-31  9:13   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01  8:30 ` [dpdk-stable] " Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01 12:32   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Christian Ehrhardt
2020-09-01 12:47     ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 13:22       ` Pai G, Sunil
2020-09-01 15:10         ` Stokes, Ian
2020-09-07 14:25           ` Luca Boccassi
2021-03-18 11:54         ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-18 13:36           ` Pai G, Sunil
2021-03-18 14:48             ` Ilya Maximets
2021-03-18 18:24               ` Pai G, Sunil
2021-03-22  9:49                 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-22 11:41                   ` Bruce Richardson
2021-03-22 11:59                     ` Luca Boccassi
2021-03-22 12:25                       ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-03-22 14:27                         ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-23 18:17                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-23 18:51                             ` Ilya Maximets
2021-03-24  7:44                               ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-24 10:28                                 ` Pai G, Sunil
2021-03-24 13:02                                   ` Christian Ehrhardt
2020-09-01 12:49     ` Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01 13:01       ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 13:28         ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 18:04 ` [dpdk-stable] [EXTERNAL] " Abhishek Marathe
2020-09-02 10:47   ` Luca Boccassi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com \
    --cc=i.maximets@ovn.org \
    --cc=ian.stokes@intel.com \
    --cc=james.page@canonical.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=sunil.pai.g@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).