From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C35A0A0A for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:02:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62A3140E0C; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:02:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB2D4067B for <stable@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:02:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qt1-f197.google.com ([209.85.160.197]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>) id 1lP39i-0002Ek-3d for stable@dpdk.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:02:38 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f197.google.com with SMTP id f8so1116680qtv.22 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:02:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mxWZYfD6tNRmXUYxdOsJJA2g4Jm2IqkBDyhpGmUN6w=; b=mWUYQ4vtPE6e56rBNr8jE1rGmars24m/w/zzri/jMg7uB2bF92LpixVr/G5Y4laGJd GaxXEswYDO00ljfkCM7dnnUQiTtN9lc63u16eJ+PqCPFjeVaOWNygpE63t67ZCsL5HfI T1Ekyup51UYhlD0QpOEGidXGM/jgSVb+pUNHOU6GqVNefG/R3Lnle5JU0DAMIcsByIPo 5FAKe8qk/KTDiIAszOTFSAs7YH6HXH6tuDGq852w5pnXUnqchU1upNzfB+V3UqGxtaYS 9pd1iwLVpbNWyrVzPf/s4+fLV9mEqu0mgyDFLQXFpf84LjqMvETBAcIMHYFbMTQd7zts cvlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mgotNdh3VZKzqAXkM1yxng/Z1evI4saoZ3Ut1/za0xcoYqteD 7FF+OHInkVorfJsKiaQlmqnm+hBEQicjmyDBTGkgVYrx2rnLDK7t82zrtOsOYT/EN5ZG8vj06L6 8qYZcb3m3ladxZWvOEJmKaKQBRw7WMz8OzKnaFfv0 X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c1:: with SMTP id 184mr2846960qkg.462.1616590956662; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8dG7iVSG0s7NUtqNJciiFEiuO2xzm4IpDBNwmThynd5t/03fEYyyNbnnr/IW3Q/I6WR6QZdbzfObo6BJ9abw= X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c1:: with SMTP id 184mr2846906qkg.462.1616590956151; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200818181222.8462-1-bluca@debian.org> <11715925.4IKFeQ5fnV@thomas> <CAATJJ0+=6=cThxQnBNbC+UaxPP9HvkrRxbdh2hzk-SoHEwfJBQ@mail.gmail.com> <5269770.kVSxIry3NT@thomas> <708d8168-7338-5aed-94cb-9653e14e79f1@ovn.org> <CAATJJ0KnYvkTWiF+DGPqLpEj1Rgteg18nd2Syq2m7XgCT6vx6w@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB381497262115C84B9C879E9EBD639@BYAPR11MB3814.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB381497262115C84B9C879E9EBD639@BYAPR11MB3814.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:02:09 +0100 Message-ID: <CAATJJ0JVbs3FxY4Hi24BmtUz8ry8CfH_k5KShU0fpuF=CxJ9jw@mail.gmail.com> To: "Pai G, Sunil" <sunil.pai.g@intel.com> Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 <stable.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/> List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:28 AM Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pai.g@intel.com> wrote= : > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 1:15 PM > > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org> > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Luca Boccassi > > <bluca@debian.org>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Pai > > G, Sunil <sunil.pai.g@intel.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; > > Govindharajan, Hariprasad <hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com>; > > stable@dpdk.org; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; James Page > > <james.page@canonical.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:51 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 no= w > > > >>>>>>>>>> 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] ba= ck > > 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 t= he > > 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 o= f > > > >>>>>>>> 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 woul= d > > > >>>>>>>>>> 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 O= VS > > 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 seem= s > > > >>>>>>>>>> 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/160814 > > > >>>>>>>>> 2365- > > > >>>>>>>> 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 proble= ms 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 clea= r > > > >>>>>> 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 li= nking > > flags"" > > > >>>>>> 906e935a1f Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: output drivers > > > >>>>>> first for static build"" > > > >>>>>> deebf95239 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: move pkg-config f= ile > > creation"" > > > >>>>>> a3bd9a34bf Revert "Revert "build: always link whole DPDK stati= c > > 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 thi= s > > > >>>>> 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 worrie= d > > > >>> 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#id1= 6 > > > >> March 2021 - Same issue re-found in >=3D19.11.6 - > > > >> 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 meeti= ng. > > > > > > > > First, I agree to revert the changes again if it causes a regressio= n. > > > > 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. > > > > I've test built a few of those already. > > - 19.11.4 (before the patches were applied) > > - OVS 2.13.1 worked > > - 19.11.6/19.11.7 (patches not yet reverted) > > - OVS 2.13.1 fails > > - OVS 2.13.3 fails > > - 19.11.7 patches reverted > > - OVS 2.13.3 works > > > > I'd also be happy to hear about OVS 2.14 test builds, so yeah if you co= uld do > > so @Sunil that would be great. > > Tested 19.11 series with OVS 2.14 and observations are like your's Christ= ian. > 19.11.4 and 19.11.7 -with patches reverted works fine, 19.11.6/7(patches = not yet reverted) cause linking errors. Thank you, with those tests and all the ack's in I'll push this to the 19.11 branch on the dpdk-stable repo. > > For the code, I've not yet pushed it to "real dpdk-stable" until we are= sure > > about it, but already to: > > https://github.com/cpaelzer/dpdk-stable-queue/tree/19.11 > > If you happen to build on Ubuntu there is a 19.11.7 + reverts already a= vailable > > here > > https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/3690/ > > > > > 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. > > > > As we found it even breaks (older) OVS, but importantly the OVS LTS whi= ch > > has the highest chance to be in use together with DPDK 19.11 in many pl= aces > > :-/ > > > > > > 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 coul= d > > > > help in the decision process. > > > > Agreed > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the work. > > > > > > > > -- > > Christian Ehrhardt > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server > > Canonical Ltd --=20 Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd