From: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.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: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:51:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <708d8168-7338-5aed-94cb-9653e14e79f1@ovn.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5269770.kVSxIry3NT@thomas>
On 3/23/21 7:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 22/03/2021 15:27, Christian Ehrhardt:
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> Sure, fair to ask for more detail :-)
>>
>>> Please do you have links of discussion history?
>>
>> I ordered the events by time and added links to those occasions that I
>> could find:
>>
>> 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 >=19.11.6 -
>> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2021-March/029418.html
>>
>> *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.
>
> First, 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?
>
I'd like to also ask someone to test build of both OVS 2.13 and OVS 2.14
with these changes and with these changes reverted.
Sunil, could you do that?
> 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.
+1
>
> Thanks for all the work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-23 18:51 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
2021-03-22 14:27 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-23 18:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-23 18:51 ` Ilya Maximets [this message]
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=708d8168-7338-5aed-94cb-9653e14e79f1@ovn.org \
--to=i.maximets@ovn.org \
--cc=bluca@debian.org \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com \
--cc=ian.stokes@intel.com \
--cc=james.page@canonical.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=sunil.pai.g@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).