On 19.11.2019 19:01, Eli Britstein wrote: > > On 11/19/2019 7:46 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 19.11.2019 18:29, Eli Britstein wrote: >>> On 11/19/2019 7:27 PM, Eli Britstein wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I see this file has many inconsistencies against the one from DPDK >>>> (18.11.2). >>>> >>>> For example, this API: >>>> >>>> rte_flow_query(uint16_t port_id, >>>> struct rte_flow *flow, >>>> enum rte_flow_action_type action, >>>> void *data, >>>> struct rte_flow_error *error); >>>> >>>> is wrong, vs the one from DPDK: >>>> >>>> rte_flow_query(uint16_t port_id, >>>> struct rte_flow *flow, >>>> const struct rte_flow_action *action, >>>> void *data, >>>> struct rte_flow_error *error); >>>> >>>> Note the "action" argument. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also see in it this line: >>>> >>>> #error "Use this header only with sparse. It is not a correct >>>> implementation." >>>> >>>> >>>> So, is it wrong on purpose? If so, why? >>>> >>>> I test my patch-set before I submit using travis, and it fails because >>>> of this wrong file. Can we just take the correct code from DPDK? >>>> Should I maybe take only the parts that cause me to fail? >> Hi. DPDK headers before 18.11.3 has issues that makes sparse unhappy. >> This header will be removed along with upgrade to 18.11.3 or higher. >> Right now we're not experiencing issues with current version of >> sparse header probably just because we're not using most of the functions. > I see. Thanks. >> >> We're not going to update this header only remove. You may update it in >> your patches or base your changes on top of dpdk-latest branch where this >> header already removed. > > So, what is the preferred way for submission? > > 1. cherry-pick those commits from dpdk-latest on top of master and my > patches on top of that
This doesn't sound like a good option. If sparse header needs only few small changes for your patches to work, you may create a special patch for that. If not, you may send patches as-is but mention that these patches depends on a DPDK 18.11.3+ and another patch that removes the sparse header. > > 2. submit directly on dpdk-latest Not sure about this option because dpdk-latest is mostly for changes that requires most recent DPDK, but this is not exactly your case. > >> >> I'm not sure when we're going to migrate to 18.11.{3,5}. >> @Ian, @Kevin, is validation still in progress? Does anyone work on this? > > Is it a question of "if" or "when"? what is the purpose of migrating to > 18.11.3/5 and not to 19.11 soon? 18.11.3/5 requires validation + small patch for docs/CI. 19.11 requires additional development that didn't started yet + validation + patch for docs/CI. Plus, 18.11 needs to be upgraded on previous versions of OVS too. With current speed of development and validation I will not be surprised if 19.11 will not be supported in next OVS release. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss