> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 1:15 PM > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Luca Boccassi > <bl...@debian.org>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Pai > G, Sunil <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; > Govindharajan, Hariprasad <hariprasad.govindhara...@intel.com>; > 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 Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:51 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@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 > <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/160814 > > >>>>>>>>> 2365- > > >>>>>>>> 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. > > 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 could do > so @Sunil that would be great.
Tested 19.11 series with OVS 2.14 and observations are like your's Christian. 19.11.4 and 19.11.7 -with patches reverted works fine, 19.11.6/7(patches not yet reverted) cause linking errors. > 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 > available > 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 which > has the highest chance to be in use together with DPDK 19.11 in many places > :-/ > > > > 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. > > Agreed > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the work. > > > > -- > Christian Ehrhardt > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server > Canonical Ltd
