Ian Stokes <[email protected]> writes:

> On 6/10/2019 3:57 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
>> On 6/6/2019 12:36 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 1:25 PM Ian Stokes <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 6/4/2019 12:14 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>>      > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:29 AM David Marchand
>>>      > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>     <mailto:[email protected]
>>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      >     Following a rework of dpdk network structures names [1],
>>>     update the
>>>      >     concerned parts.
>>>      >
>>>      >     Ran Olivier script:
>>>      >     sh prefix-net-rte.sh $(find -name "*dpdk*.c")
>>>      >     sh prefix-net-rte.sh $(find -name "*dpdk*.h")
>>>      >     sh prefix-net-rte.sh $(find -name "*rte*.c")
>>>      >     sh prefix-net-rte.sh $(find -name "*rte*.h")
>>>      >
>>>      >     Plus an extra pass following further changes [2]:
>>>      >     old=RTE_IPv4
>>>      >     new=RTE_IPV4
>>>      >     git grep -lw $old | xargs sed -i -e "s/\<$old\>/$new/g"
>>>      >
>>>      >     old=RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPv4
>>>      >     new=RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPV4
>>>      >     git grep -lw $old | xargs sed -i -e "s/\<$old\>/$new/g"
>>>      >
>>>      >     old=RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPv6
>>>      >     new=RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPV6
>>>      >     git grep -lw $old | xargs sed -i -e "s/\<$old\>/$new/g"
>>>      >
>>>      >     1: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-May/132612.html
>>>      >     2: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=0c9da7555da8
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > Olivier noticed that I had used an early version of his patch.
>>>      > The published one handles the update on RTE_IPv4.
>>>      > I tried the last version which gives the same result anyway.
>>>      > So the extra pass is unnecessary.
>>>      >
>>>      > I can send a v2 to update the commitlog accordingly.
>>>      >
>>>
>>>     Hi David,
>>>
>>>     thanks for this, upon inspection the patch looks fine and I can
>>> confirm
>>>     that dpdk-latest is now building with Master of DPDK again.
>>>
>>>     I'm just in the process of running a few smoke tests to make sure
>>>     there's no issues functionally (I don't expect to see any as the
>>>     changes
>>>     seem straight forward).
>>>
>>>     WRT the v2, what exactly do you want to change in the commit? If it's
>>>     trivial I can amend it before committing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just stripped the useless part in the commitlog and put a link to
>>> Olivier mail which contained his script.
>>> You can see the commitlog here:
>>> https://github.com/david-marchand/ovs/commit/9d367de7d323c28f7c89d590ff60373c47ffa073
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I'll be applying this to dpdk-latest and dpdk-hwol branches but
>>> not ovs
>>>     master (master is still using DPDK 18.11.1 currently so no need for
>>>     these changes until it moves to 19.11).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, makes sense.
>>> Thanks Ian.
>>
>> Thanks David, validated and pushed to dpdk-latest and dpdk-wol.
>
> Good catch actually. In the past we had previously tracked the latest
> DPDK release to compile against, but now that dpdk-latest is used with
> the UNH DPDK CI it probably makes more sense to track DPDK master at
> that's what dpdk-latest looks to enable compilation of.
>
> I'm not against this, would be interested in what peoples thoughts are
> and if so we can modify travis for the dpdk-latest branch.

At least for this part (per-branch), the travis yml is read on a
per-branch basis.  If it changes on one branch, only that branch will
be affected.  Is this what you mean?

> Ian
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to