> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:40:12PM +0000, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:16:15PM +0000, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > > > > On 06.11.2018 17:31, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > > > > >> On 18.10.2018 16:29, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > > > > >>> vhost ports are not DPDK eth ports and has no rte_flow API. > > > > > >>> Stop calling this API with DPDK_ETH_PORT_ID_INVALID to avoid > > > > > >>> time wasting and errors in log. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Additionally, DPDK_FLOW_OFFLOAD_API definition moved to .c > > > > > >>> file, because there is no need to expose it in header. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> CC: Finn Christensen <[email protected]> > > > > > >>> Fixes: e8a2b5bf92bb ("netdev-dpdk: implement flow offload > > > > > >>> with rte > > > > > >>> flow") > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> > > > > > >>> --- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Ian, > > > > > >> You didn't backport this patch to 2.10. Do you think that > > > > > >> it's not needed or you just missed it while preparing the pull > request? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Periodic errors in log are a bit annoying. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch above assumes that a previous commit 89c09c1cd1f0 > > > ("netdev: > > > > > Clean up class initialization.") is in place, however > > > > > 89c09c1cd1f0 > > > > > ("netdev: Clean up class initialization.") was never backported > > > > > to branch > > > > > 2.10 I had discussed this with Ben but we didn’t see the need. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. I see. > > > > > > > > > > > As such the patch does not apply as the netdev dpdk class > > > > > > layout > > > > > differs. You could submit a specific patch for branch 2.10 with > > > > > an amended commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively I'm thinking it might make sense to backport > > > > > > 89c09c1cd1f0 > > > > > as well as the patch above in order to remove the periodic log > > > requests? > > > > > > > > > > In this case you'll need to backport also commit > > > > > 72713c651 ("netdev-bsd: Fix build failure because of undefined > > > > > NO_OFFLOAD_API."). > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can backport only changes related to netdev-dpdk like > this: > > > > > git cherry-pick -n 89c09c1cd1f0 c0af6425d \ > > > > > && git reset HEAD \ > > > > > && git add lib/netdev-dpdk.c \ > > > > > && git checkout . \ > > > > > && git commit -sv > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Sure, that would work, I'd like to ask Bens opinion here also. > > > > > > > > Ben would above be ok or is it preferred to backport commits > > > > separately to 2.10 as > > > > > > > > 89c09c1cd1f0 ("netdev: Clean up class initialization.") > > > > 72713c651 ("netdev-bsd: Fix build failure because of undefined > > > NO_OFFLOAD_API."). > > > > c0af6425d7ed ("netdev-dpdk: Drop offload API for vhost ports.") > > > > > > > > Is there a preference as regards keeping the original commits and > > > > sign > > > off tags for the code changes when backporting rather than creating > > > a new commit that combines code changes. > > > > > > Usually we backport commit individually because it makes it easier > > > to figure out what was backported. Individual commits are easy to > > > see at a glance in the history, squashed commits take a closer look. > > > > Thanks for clarifying, in that case I'll backport the three commits > separately. > > > > A quick follow up, commit 89c09c1cd1f0 isn't specific to netdev-dpdk and > also is not a bug fix but it does help avoid periodic errors in the logs > for HWOL. As it doesn't add new functionality I would assume it's ok to > backport? > > Seems fine to me.
Thanks Ben, Ian _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
