On 10/7/24 12:45, Vladislav Odintsov wrote: > From: Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> > > This picks up the following relevant commit: > cd8ffc956c3c ovs-atomic: Fix inclusion of Clang header by GCC 14. > > Without this builds on Fedora 40 (rawhide) are broken due to failing to > compile the submodule. > > Signed-off-by: Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Numan Siddique <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Numan Siddique <[email protected]> > (cherry picked from commit f224c6e5f69c099ddb008f99dba2e19a902a612f) > Signed-off-by: Vladislav Odintsov <[email protected]> > --- > Without this patch there are errors building OVN on a modern systems. > > I kindly request for this patch to be backported down to 22.03 LTS > including already officially unsupported branches 23.03, 22.09 and 22.06, > since we internally still need to base on 22.09 branch in development. > > Thanks in advance if it is possible to make an exception and ignore > backport rules for non-LTS releases and patch them too. > ---
Hi Vladislav, I see this patch was marked as "Changes Requested" in patchwork but I'm not sure who did that (either one of the other maintainers or yourself). In any case, I assume the request still applies, right? > ovs | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/ovs b/ovs > index 8fd5f77cd..49e64f13b 160000 > --- a/ovs > +++ b/ovs > @@ -1 +1 @@ > -Subproject commit 8fd5f77cd84ea04667f987c7b84181604dc99f60 > +Subproject commit 49e64f13b2c965f5b53a65eeab70ac2e3f0bf69a Shouldn't we bump to 3ff343a96b4c instead? AFAICT that's the tip of branch-3.2 in OVS today. While we're at it we should probably bump branch-23.09 to the same version too. What do you think? Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
