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.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) > > > > 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 -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
