On 13.03.2025 16:16, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
On 13/03/2025 13:49, Gabriel Goller wrote:
Resolve conflict between F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST and ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK
which were both using the same bit value (0x01). This collision caused
unit test mode to be unintentionally enabled when DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK was set.
This is also wrong at upstream then though?
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/isisd/isisd.h#L79-L81
Is upstream notified of this? maybe send a PR to them if testing holds
up.
Already done, forgot to mention this:
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/18377
missing a fixes trailer, like:
Fixes: ecf591e ("frr: add the dummy_as_loopback patch series, enable it by
default")
Right!
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller <g.gol...@proxmox.com>
---
* I'm not sure about the debian version number, let me know if this is
wrong.
For starters please always do the bump in a separate patch, it's rather
unrelated to the fix. I'm also fine with handling bumps myself, as should be
all release team members. FWIW, I appreciate getting changes added there,
and thought about even starting to requesting that, but they really need
to target humans and should keep the "UNRELEASED" as value for the release,
i.e. what the `dch -i` template uses by default.
Ok, will do.
w.r.t. versioning I'd have bumped the pve1 part to pve2.
So '10.2.1-1+pve2'?
Makes sense as we deviate from the debian package here.
* I edited the patch introducing this bug, if it's better to add a new
patch, I'll be happy to change it.
This is fine, layered patches of patches are seldomly a good option.
* We are still testing the newest version so it's not yet ready for
testing/no-subscription.
So what can I expect here, should it still be packaged and uploaded to
internal staging for more broad QA?
Yep, internal staging is good. Just didn't want you to think of this
patch as a "we're done with testing" message :)
debian/changelog | 6 ++++++
...d-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch | 13 ++++++++-----
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 6e68311132b1..7e2ffd7964a9 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+frr (10.2.1-2+pve1) bookworm; urgency=medium
+
+ * fix fabricd dummy_as_loopback flag collision
collision with what? these entries should be telling for end users (not devs).
True, a simpler "fix fabricd dummy_as_loopback flag" would be enough.
+
+ -- Gabriel Goller <g.gol...@proxmox.com> Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:33:46 +0100
+
frr (10.2.1-1+pve1) bookworm; urgency=medium
* update upstream source to 10.2.1
diff --git
a/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
b/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
index 331beed378ec..184a093334c9 100644
---
a/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
+++
b/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller <g.gol...@proxmox.com>
isisd/isis_circuit.c | 9 +++++----
isisd/isis_main.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
isisd/isisd.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
- isisd/isisd.h | 4 ++++
- 6 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
+ isisd/isisd.h | 6 +++++-
+ 6 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Index: b/doc/manpages/frr-fabricd.rst
===================================================================
@@ -181,15 +181,18 @@ Index: b/isisd/isisd.h
===================================================================
--- a/isisd/isisd.h 2025-03-07 11:09:47.700424235 +0100
+++ b/isisd/isisd.h 2025-03-07 11:09:47.698424233 +0100
-@@ -74,7 +74,9 @@
+@@ -74,9 +74,11 @@
struct list *isis;
/* ISIS thread master. */
struct event_loop *master;
+ /* Various global options */
uint8_t options;
-+#define ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK (1 << 0)
++#define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST (1 << 0)
++#define ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK (1 << 1)
somewhat pre-existing, but yuck, who places defines in the middle of struct
definitions?!¿
Stefan said the exact same thing :)
This is done quite commonly in frr e.g.:
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=mirror_frr.git;a=blob;f=bgpd/bgpd.h;h=9cb1d51088cfc456f344b17b8068f84d382e3751;hb=HEAD#l210.
But I don't think it's that bad anyway :).
btw. such bit flag definition are one of the few cases where aligning the
values makes sense and the header you're modifying here already uses that
style:
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/isisd/isisd.h#L374-L389
Agree.
};
- #define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST 0x01
+-#define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST 0x01
+
+ #define ISIS_DEFAULT_MAX_AREA_ADDRESSES 3
@@ -269,6 +271,8 @@
void isis_terminate(void);
Thanks for looking at this!
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
