On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:30 PM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11.06.2019 19:10, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ilya Maximets <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 11.06.2019 18:21, Ian Stokes wrote: > > > On 6/11/2019 3:40 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > > >> Ian Stokes <[email protected] <mailto:[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]> > > >>>>> <mailto:[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]>> > > >>>>> <mailto:[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? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I have changes that apply to both master and dpdk-latest branch, then a > change for the switch to dpdk master branch in dpdk-latest. > > > > I can post the changes for master on top of your patch that disables > kni/igb_uio. > > We merge yours and mine in master, then pull master into dpdk-latest. > > > > Then I would only send the switch to dpdk master branch for the > dpdk-latest ovs branch. > > > > Is this ok this way ? > > OK for me in general. However, I think that it's time for 'git pull > --rebase' > on dpdk-latest branch since it's already a bit diverged and some patches, > including > travis patches, will have conflicts. > > So, I agree with your scheme, but with rebase instead of pull. > Ok, I will send my changes on master on top of your patch... > BTW, I'm leaving the office now and will back only on Monday due to public > holidays > and a small PTO. > ... and wait for your return anyway :-). -- David Marchand _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
