On 12/17/20 6:24 PM, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 12/17/2020 3:55 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 12/16/20 9:37 PM, Flavio Leitner wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 02:30:29AM +0100, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>> On 11/12/20 6:04 PM, Gregory Rose wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/12/2020 5:10 AM, Mark Gray wrote: >>>>>> On 30/10/2020 18:32, Gregory Rose wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question is whether there is any interest in continuing to support >>>>>>> the OVS out-of-tree (OOT) kernel driver or should we deprecate it? The >>>>>>> latest kernel support for the OOT driver is up to 5.8.x There seems to >>>>>>> be little interest that I can tell in using the OOT driver. The main >>>>>>> distros all include the kernel built-in OVS driver and those drivers >>>>>>> generally seem to support all the primary features required by user >>>>>>> space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of the energy on this list seems to be directed toward DPDK and OVN >>>>>>> and it doesn't seem to me that either of those require the OOT driver. >>>>>>> If there's no one actually using the OOT driver I suggest we deprecate >>>>>>> it and save time and energy on keeping it up to date. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Opinions, thoughts, comments? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it is good to raise this question. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would certainly simplify development of kernel features and avoid the >>>>>> type of issue that I had recently with a patch in the OOT tree but not >>>>>> upstream. As I don't know who uses OOT, I can't comment beyond that. >>>>> >>>>> I'm knee deep in some work at my day job but when I get a >>>>> chance I'm going to send a patch for the faq, NEWS, etc. and request >>>>> that we deprecate the OOT driver and end support for newer kernels >>>>> at the current 5.8. After that we'll only take bug fixes. >>>>> >>>>> I don't really believe there are any consumers for the OOT driver >>>>> on this list anymore. Certainly the lack of response to this >>>>> question indicates that. >>>> >>>> CC: ovs-discuss >>>> >>>> Thanks for raising this question. >>>> >>>> As far as the topic goes, the only thing that might get people to use >>>> the OOT module with kernels higher than 5.8 is SST or LISP support. >>>> On the other hand, there were reasons to reject patches to support these >>>> protocols in the mainline kernel. And I have no idea if anyone is actually >>>> using them. I never used them and I'm not even sure if they actually work >>>> taking into account that we have only 2 system tests for them that doesn't >>>> really check much. >>>> >>>> Maybe we could also raise the question during the conference to get more >>>> attention. I'd like to add a reference into my "community updates" >>>> presentation. >>>> >>>> I know that it takes a lot of time to support OOT kernel module and it >>>> doesn't seem worth the effort. I'd vote for deprecation and eventual >>>> removal. Sending patches is a good idea, with them we could move forward >>>> if no strong objections will appear. And thanks for all the work you did >>>> supporting kernel module all that time! >>> >>> Since the conference already happened, have you decided something? >> >> IIRC, during the conference Han mentioned that they are relying on OOT module >> for STT support. And I also noticed a patch from Vitaly to fix some issue >> in STT part of the kernel module. Both CC-ed. >> >> Han, Vitaly, do you have some thoughts about deprecation of OOT kernel >> module and what is your usecase with STT? Is it critical for you to have >> STT support here in upstream OVS? >> >>> >>> I suggest to follow "Feature Deprecation Guidelines" section in >>> Documentation/internals/contributing/submitting-patches.rst with >>> the addition of warning when building that code for extra >>> visibility. >> >> Sure, that is reasonable. We should have a deprecation warning in >> configure script if '--with-linux' requested. >> >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >> > > I will work something up. I will be out for most of the holidays but > will try to have patches ready soon after the new year. > > Thanks all for suggestions and input. > > - Greg
Thanks! Jan 1 is a soft freeze for current release, but I think it'll be fine to accept these changes after that time. So, no rush. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
