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 D75B4A0C41 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:17:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F5A140D36; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:17:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C248E40143; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:17:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09E2536; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:17:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= l6GkCgW3z9afB6NjLeFZ6t2Hq++8kw2BFi9px81y/OI=; b=AMD2yG3JTdr0OMir ji24nY5Xks3GRH1bhUgGq7bW5hMfGllnPv57jHd1bclxjERIJJLEwXJsMfMjADjT ty2wgx6Lvk7CxqNkghHmt5819d8H51Qo9Cmt42NV5hjQp6riFLClZ8yGCVKthBWj 34XMdNPwTWSWGRtCP/fVM6xsjInqCQqE0JtDpPJNwkAGcYzZNUH7yABCWz1XhUg8 CCBzlj0DDFb6waSIXPhTZk3LgjZMIRbKR1rGFN7Gt2Fm7k5XFkNY0HXeVYW8lqWy Cs8EY3lE3xP1ljxhJW61PCgY58xuV438gSIpVJtvkjfxTj9hFdxPU0eRqtoX2jf0 7OviSA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=l6GkCgW3z9afB6NjLeFZ6t2Hq++8kw2BFi9px81y/ OI=; b=td/wQY+ADVVkTPaiPeGBpKOm3bA+Lsj3JvBUbf8+BC4lyh0UmjETwgbs1 9zi80pl/VfPrFb2/cUT8H6ep4x0j7sslrBwfm5a23d4cfrjJvyF3R02/OpYBYntq oHsOQZ1P7F/z4QoZYVpZpJ8BcoVT60hXFtfgh/t3Qny1SfLMBUNWHqbW41J8xeFF gBPY9fuCaWi5Z1v7IY7SrknObtjH5foxYDI8iwZSvz92PtA16tX6IY7a9fWRQ7QT 6+HxFtqq2kYd6QjDSR0pvOuGtqDImlA30ytXzJP3eiJ8dEIRvDKblrMYPcq6GOdn qD2Go98rmMcvkLhrcQ9SCq75fEIIA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudegiedgudduudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhudffueeuledtffeuhefgueevjeelieegveffuefgudefuedu vdeitedvheehueenucffohhmrghinhepohiilhgrsghsrdhorhhgpdguphgukhdrohhrgh enucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptden ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1AC2C1080054; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:17:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Christian Ehrhardt Cc: Luca Boccassi , Bruce Richardson , "Pai G, Sunil" , Ilya Maximets , "Stokes, Ian" , "Govindharajan, Hariprasad" , "stable@dpdk.org" , dev , James Page Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:17:11 +0100 Message-ID: <5269770.kVSxIry3NT@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200818181222.8462-1-bluca@debian.org> <11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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" 22/03/2021 15:27, Christian Ehrhardt: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Thomas Monjalon wro= te: > > 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 wrote: > > > > > > Hi Christian, Ilya > > > > > > From: Ilya Maximets > > > > > > > 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 n= ow and > > > > > > > > > thereby Luca has "reverted the reverts" in 19.11.6 [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But today we were made aware that still no OVS 2.13 build= s 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] b= ack then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I have just released 19.11.7 so I can't rev= ert them > > > > > > > > > there - but OTOH reverting and counter reverting every ot= her release > > > > > > > > > seems wrong anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is wrong indeed, but the main question here is why these p= atches was > > > > > > > backported to stable release in a first place? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at these patches, they are not actual bug fixes but m= ore like "nice to > > > > > > > have" features that additionally breaks the way application l= inks with DPDK. > > > > > > > Stuff like that should not be acceptable to the stable releas= e 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 requester= s, 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 wou= ld need to > > > > > > > > > backport to 2.13.x to make this work? > > > > > > > > > If they could be identified and prepared Distros could us= e 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 woul= d need to be. > > > > > > > > > All I know atm is from the testing reports on DPDK it see= ms 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 bac= kported 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/16081= 42365- > > > > > > > 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 problem= s for OVS too. > > > > > > > > Your thoughts Ilya ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had more fixes on top of this particular patch and I'd lik= e 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 rev= ert > > > > > of the following list. > > > > > And since that is a lot of "reverts" in the string, to be clear i= t 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 linki= ng 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 l= ibraries"" > > > > > d4bc124438 Revert "Revert "devtools: test static linkage with pkg= =2Dconfig"" > > > > > > > > > > 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 re= lease > > > > 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). >=20 > Sure, fair to ask for more detail :-) >=20 > > Please do you have links of discussion history? >=20 > I ordered the events by time and added links to those occasions that I > could find: >=20 > July 2020 - Initial request by OVS - *1 > July 2020 - Initial queuing - > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-July/024248.html > September 2020 - Issues identified; changes reverted - > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.html > October 2020 - Re-applying early in 19.11.6 cycle - *1 > November 2020 - Tests didn't spot it with 19.11.6 as OVS 2.14.x (not > the 2.13 LTS) was tested - > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-19.11/rel_notes/release_19_11.html#id16 > March 2021 - Same issue re-found in >=3D19.11.6 - > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2021-March/029418.html >=20 > *1 - Luca and I looked for logs, there are no links that I'd know of > and Luca said it might have come up as a request during a meeting. =46irst, I agree to revert the changes again if it causes a regression. Second, do we know the root cause of the issue? Is it a problem with the version of pkg-config? Is it OK with DPDK 20.11? About the process, I see multiple issues: 1/ Some patches were backported for OVS only, but it could break other applications. 2/ It is not clear whether the patches were really needed in 19.11. 3/ There is no trace of backport requests in the mailing list. So I feel we should be stricter on the reasons for a backport. Note: I am not blaming anyone. Everybody tries to do the best. I believe sharing requests and discussions on the mailing list could help in the decision process. Thanks for all the work.