22/03/2021 15:27, Christian Ehrhardt: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@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.pa...@intel.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Christian, Ilya > > > > > > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@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.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 > > > > 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? 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.
