I see, you have your own fork of DPDK. This explains everything, thanks.

It would be nice to have this documented (or even automated) somewhere - or am I missing something again? Sure, this aligns nicely with Paul's build process proposal.

Best,
Valentine

On 19.05.2017 08:15, Anand H Krishnan wrote:
Hello Valentine,

For the DPDK issue, you have to update the DPDK repo. Can you do
a repo sync and try.

Cheers,
Anand




On 5/18/17, 5:28 PM, "Valentine Sinitsyn" <valentine.sinit...@gmail.com> wrote:

These are good news, thanks for replying. Fixing yourself is typically
easier than someone else. :-)

Yet may I ask you to have a look at [1]? It's pretty straightforward to
run this script manually to see it does the quotation wrong:

char *ContrailBuildInfo = "{"build-info": ...

Note the first quote: this is what makes dkms cry.

As for DPDK, I'm referring to PKT_RX_GSO_TCP4 and PKT_RX_GSO_TCP6. Maybe
they come through command line options or some DPDK library I don't have
here.

Anyways, the purpose of my message was not to blame OC of being poor
code quality, just about expectations. From what you say, I understand
that the code in master must at least compile and probably have the
testsuite passed.

1.
https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-vrouter/blob/master/utils/dkms/gen_build_info.sh

Best,
Valentine

On 18.05.2017 16:46, Jakub Pavlik wrote:
+1 I also see that every commit is validated and tested. There are not
any issues.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Anand H Krishnan <anan...@juniper.net
<mailto:anan...@juniper.net>> wrote:

    For point 1.

    We compile code almost every day and for every commit. The commits
    do not go through if there are compilation failures. I haven’t
    heard any complaints about DKMS too.

    Maybe there are issues indeed, but as of now its more likely that
    you are doing something different.

    Thanks,
    Anand



    On 5/17/17, 11:20 AM, "Dev on behalf of Valentine Sinitsyn"
    <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org
    <mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of
    valentine.sinit...@gmail.com <mailto:valentine.sinit...@gmail.com>>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Those are valid points. I'd add a few more, if you don't mind:
    >
    >1. Code quality (esp. in master branch)
    >I've encountered undefined macros in vrouter-dpdk and shell escaping
    >issues in dkms scripts at the very least. Sure, this is trivial to fix,
    >yet it makes me think that either no one tried to compile those
    >components besides me (as this fails immediately) or I do something
    >awfully wrong. Which brings us to the second point:
    >
    >2. Public CI, maybe via Travis/Github badge
    >This is to make sure the code works at least in some environment, so I
    >can figure out what's wrong with mine. Aside issues mentioned
    above, BGP
    >stress test is failing now as well, and there is no way to figure
    out is
    >it my fault or the thing is currently broken.
    >
    >Setting clear expectations for master branch (such as: "may not even
    >compile", "should not break the testsuite, but may fail in corner cases
    >or under load", "we try to keep it as stable as possible and develop in
    >feature branches") would also be very helpful.
    >
    >Randy: enjoy your TBO! It was my pleasure to be at OCUG in Boston.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Valentine
    >
    >On 16.05.2017 01:50, Edgar Magana wrote:
    >> Folks,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> These are all excellent points. Would it be possible to have all
    these
    >> details in github repos?
    >>
    >> That will be easy to follow up the conversations instead of using
    email.
    >> Well, just my proposal. It is working well for other open source
    >> communities such as OpenStack.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Edgar
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> *From: *Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org
    <mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> on behalf of "CARVER,
    >> PAUL" <pc2...@att.com <mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
    >> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:06 AM
    >> *To: *"ran...@juniper.net <mailto:ran...@juniper.net>"
    <ran...@juniper.net <mailto:ran...@juniper.net>>,
    >> "dev@lists.opencontrail.org <mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>"
    <dev@lists.opencontrail.org <mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
    >> *Subject: *[opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Randy,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks for your presentation at the Open Contrail Users Group
    last week.
    >> Can you please post a public link to your slide deck for people
    who were
    >> unable to attend or who didn’t take phone photos of every slide.
    >> Especially, the link to the Google Group needs to go out so that
    >> everyone on the Dev mailing list can sign up.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have a list of potential topics for the first meeting of whatever
    >> forum you end up organizing.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>   * Compiling Contrail from source – There has been a fair amount of
    >>     discussion of this on the mailing list recently
    >>       o Discussion of issues people are encountering
    >>       o Build scripts
    >>       o Prerequisites
    >>       o Documentation of the build process
    >>   * Due dates
    >>       o An overview of current key dates in the process
    (blueprint, code
    >>         complete, testing, documentation, beta, GA)
    >>       o Discussion of any changes that might help contributors
    plan better
    >>       o Dates for dates – set expectations on how and when the
    key dates
    >>         for future releases will be set
    >>       o Missed date management – discussion of how slipped dates for
    >>         Juniper’s GA release impact community development
    >>   * Testing procedures
    >>       o Discussion of how third party developers should expect to
    >>         interact with Juniper during the time period between code
    freeze
    >>         and beta and GA
    >>       o Discussion of beta vs release candidate and whether there are
    >>         process improvements needed in order to ensure that third
    party
    >>         developers are able to catch and fix bugs in the features
    they
    >>         are developing
    >>       o Overview of test framework, not just unit tests but
    functional
    >>         and full stack automated tests
    >>   * Documentation
    >>       o How are non-Juniper developers expected to deliver
    documentation
    >>         for features that they develop?
    >>       o When is documentation due?
    >>   * Core reviewer / TSC / meetings
    >>       o What are the expectations for a non-Juniper developer to
    become
    >>         a core reviewer?
    >>       o Does Contrail have anything equivalent to a Technical
    Steering
    >>         Committee?
    >>       o Are there any regularly scheduled meetings (e.g. on
    Slack/IRC or
    >>         teleconference) for developers to sync up on progress of
    their
    >>         changes, discuss code reviews, discuss bugs, etc
    >>       o Build system problems – How can non-Juniper contributors
    >>         effectively troubleshoot issues like this:
    >>
     
https://jenkins.opencontrail.org/job/ci-contrail-vrouter-systest-ubuntu14-mitaka/480/console
    
<https://jenkins.opencontrail.org/job/ci-contrail-vrouter-systest-ubuntu14-mitaka/480/console>
    >>
     
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jenkins.opencontrail.org_job_ci-2Dcontrail-2Dvrouter-2Dsystest-2Dubuntu14-2Dmitaka_480_console&d=DwMFAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=672AiZ61UGMFTc1WfPGBmgJYUEzVnbC9i9hqKSlloZo&s=j-50PyEc_ppikIVehQAGlLvpHxEL8q7515cEI087XEo&e=
    
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jenkins.opencontrail.org_job_ci-2Dcontrail-2Dvrouter-2Dsystest-2Dubuntu14-2Dmitaka_480_console&d=DwMFAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=672AiZ61UGMFTc1WfPGBmgJYUEzVnbC9i9hqKSlloZo&s=j-50PyEc_ppikIVehQAGlLvpHxEL8q7515cEI087XEo&e=>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> Dev mailing list
    >> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org <mailto:Dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
    >>
    http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
    <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>
    >>
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >Dev mailing list
    >Dev@lists.opencontrail.org <mailto:Dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
    >http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
    <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>
    _______________________________________________
    Dev mailing list
    Dev@lists.opencontrail.org <mailto:Dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
    http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
    <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>




--
Jakub Pavlik
+420 602 177 027
jpav...@mirantis.com <mailto:jpav...@mirantis.com>

--
С уважением,
Синицын Валентин

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Reply via email to