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 <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? >
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.
