On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:25 PM Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pa...@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Christian, Ilya > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> > > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:18 PM > > To: Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Christian Ehrhardt > > <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; > > Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org>; Govindharajan, Hariprasad > > <hariprasad.govindhara...@intel.com> > > Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Luca Boccassi > > <bl...@debian.org>; sta...@dpdk.org; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; James Page > > <james.p...@canonical.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test > > > > 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.sto...@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) And finally, I wonder if I'd just push those to the 19.11 git branch OR should also release a 19.11.8 with just those changes sometime soon - opinions? > > For users stable releases should be > > transparent, i.e. should not have disruptive changes that will break their > > ability to build with version of a library that they would like to use. > > > > What are exact changes we're talking about? Will it still be possible to > > build > > OVS with older versions of a stable 19.11 if these changes applied? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> [1]: http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/log/?h=19.11&ofs=550 > > >> [2]: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.html > > > <snipped> > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > Sunil > > > -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd
