On 11.06.2019 18:21, Ian Stokes wrote:
> On 6/11/2019 3:40 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Ian Stokes <ian.sto...@intel.com> 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 <ian.sto...@intel.com
>>>>> <mailto:ian.sto...@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      On 6/4/2019 12:14 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>>>>       > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:29 AM David Marchand
>>>>>       > <david.march...@redhat.com <mailto:david.march...@redhat.com>
>>>>>      <mailto:david.march...@redhat.com
>>>>>      <mailto:david.march...@redhat.com>>> 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?
> 
> Yes, travis would be changed to track master just for dpdk-latest is my 
> understanding. OVS master and OVS release branches should still only track 
> the DPDK LTS release they are currently validated against in their travis yml.

Makes sense. Broken travis builds on dpdk-latest branch are annoying.

Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to