On 11.10.2024 14:00, Dumitru Ceara wrote: On 10/7/24 12:45, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
From: Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Acked-by: Numan Siddique <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Numan Siddique <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit f224c6e5f69c099ddb008f99dba2e19a902a612f) Signed-off-by: Vladislav Odintsov <[email protected]><mailto:[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? Am I understanding you correctly that it's worth to bump OVN branch-23.03's OVS submodule to 120050c26 (which is the backport commit of proposed by you 3ff343a96b4c, but from branch-3.1)? I'm not sure if it is good idea to bump minor OVS version between (possible) patch/hotfix OVN versions. If yes, I've got a question: shouldn't we bump to f59f19bf6 (ovsdb-idl: Fix IDL memory leak.) instead? Regards, Dumitru -- Regards, Vladislav Odintsov _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
