Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 7/5/22 20:28, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 6/29/2022 3:42 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 6/10/22 02:31, Frode Nordahl wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:16 PM Frode Nordahl >>> wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > > On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: >> >> >> On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: >>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets >>> wrote: On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > in it's place [1]. > > This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > > A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've > never > actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. > I wil > attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > install_kernel() function. Several other tests are > failing > that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need > to > read and understand that code better. > C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath > that > will need eventual removal but some headers are still > required for > the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > > Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > > 1. > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? >>> >>> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master >>> branch >>> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module >>> immediately. >>> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series >>> soon. >>> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about >>> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on >>> that >>> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module >>> and >>> OVS form the same branch, obviously. >>> >>> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove >>> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. >>> >>> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace >>> datapath, >>> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better >>> supported >>> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting >>> the >>> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug >>> fixes. >>> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from >>> the >>> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not >>> backporting >>> new features for a few years already. >>> >>> Does that make sense? >> >> Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would >> be great to know your plans for this patch set. >> >> Thanks, >> fbl >> > > Hi Flavio and Ilya,
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 6/29/2022 3:42 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 6/10/22 02:31, Frode Nordahl wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:16 PM Frode Nordahl wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and OVS form the same branch, obviously. Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting new features for a few years already. Does that make sense? Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would be great to know your plans for this patch set. Thanks, fbl Hi Flavio and Ilya, I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break something with every attempt but I will keep at it. What's my time frame before the freeze? The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. So, we have about 6 weeks. If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you out. I'm not sure if we have experts on debian packaging though. Maybe we can ask some folks from Canonical. They do their own packaging, but should know a thing or two about packaging in general. We'd be happy to help out with the packaging bits. Both Debian and Ubuntu have drifted away from what is currently in the debian/ folder in the OVS and OVN repositories. This state is problematic because from time to time someone tries to build packages from the OVS/OVN debian package source and then expect that package to work with up-/down-grades from-/to/ distro versions. So we would prefer to either remove what's there and replace it with a README pointing to Debian and Ubuntu package sources, or update what's there to match packaging state du
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 6/10/22 02:31, Frode Nordahl wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:16 PM Frode Nordahl > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> >>> On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: >> >> On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: >> >> >> On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: >>> It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push >>> towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver >>> in it's place [1]. >>> >>> This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few >>> primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. >>> >>> A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver >>> module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never >>> actually made any changes in that area and do not have a >>> well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I >>> wil >>> attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. >>> B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I >>> could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use >>> install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing >>> that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to >>> read and understand that code better. >>> C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that >>> will need eventual removal but some headers are still >>> required for >>> the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) >>> >>> Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! >>> >>> 1. >>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html >> >> I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the >> OVS >> Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it >> easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the >> Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. >> >> The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is >> still >> preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for >> older Linux distributions. >> >> Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a >> bit >> overly aggressive. >> >> Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? > > Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch > doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module > immediately. > It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series > soon. > This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about > possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that > branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and > OVS form the same branch, obviously. > > Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove > the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. > > And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, > but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better > supported > version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting > the > out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug > fixes. > And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the > version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting > new features for a few years already. > > Does that make sense? Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would be great to know your plans for this patch set. Thanks, fbl >>> >>> Hi Flavio and Ilya, >>> >>> I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues >>> with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never >>> worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break >>> something with every attempt but I will keep at it. >>> >>> What's my time frame before the freeze? >> >> The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation >> for a new release - mid July. It would be
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:16 PM Frode Nordahl wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > > > > On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: > > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > > > On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > >> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > > It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > > towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > > in it's place [1]. > > > > This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > > primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > > > > A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > > module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've > > never > > actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > > well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I > > wil > > attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > > B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > > could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > > install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing > > that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to > > read and understand that code better. > > C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath > > that > > will need eventual removal but some headers are still > > required for > > the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > > > > Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > > > > 1. > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html > > >>> > > >>> I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the > > >>> OVS > > >>> Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make > > >>> it > > >>> easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the > > >>> Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. > > >>> > > >>> The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is > > >>> still > > >>> preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS > > >>> for > > >>> older Linux distributions. > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a > > >>> bit > > >>> overly aggressive. > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? > > >> > > >> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master > > >> branch > > >> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module > > >> immediately. > > >> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series > > >> soon. > > >> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about > > >> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that > > >> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and > > >> OVS form the same branch, obviously. > > >> > > >> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove > > >> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. > > >> > > >> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace > > >> datapath, > > >> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better > > >> supported > > >> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting > > >> the > > >> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug > > >> fixes. > > >> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the > > >> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting > > >> new features for a few years already. > > >> > > >> Does that make sense? > > > > > > Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would > > > be great to know your plans for this patch set. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > fbl > > > > > > > Hi Flavio and Ilya, > > > > I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues > > with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never > > worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break > > something with every attempt but I will keep at it. > > > > What's my time frame before the
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > > On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > > > On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > >>> > >>> On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > in it's place [1]. > > This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > > A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never > actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil > attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing > that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to > read and understand that code better. > C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that > will need eventual removal but some headers are still required > for > the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > > Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > > 1. > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html > >>> > >>> I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS > >>> Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it > >>> easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the > >>> Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. > >>> > >>> The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still > >>> preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for > >>> older Linux distributions. > >>> > >>> Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit > >>> overly aggressive. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? > >> > >> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch > >> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module > >> immediately. > >> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series > >> soon. > >> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about > >> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that > >> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and > >> OVS form the same branch, obviously. > >> > >> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove > >> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. > >> > >> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, > >> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better > >> supported > >> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the > >> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug > >> fixes. > >> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the > >> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting > >> new features for a few years already. > >> > >> Does that make sense? > > > > Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would > > be great to know your plans for this patch set. > > > > Thanks, > > fbl > > > > Hi Flavio and Ilya, > > I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues > with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never > worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break > something with every attempt but I will keep at it. > > What's my time frame before the freeze? > >>> > >>> The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation > >>> for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this > >>> in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. > >>> So, we have about 6 weeks. > >>> > >>> If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately > >>> by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 6/1/22 22:53, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html >>> >>> I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS >>> Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it >>> easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the >>> Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. >>> >>> The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still >>> preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for >>> older Linux distributions. >>> >>> Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit >>> overly aggressive. >>> >>> Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? >> >> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch >> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. >> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. >> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about >> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that >> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and >> OVS form the same branch, obviously. >> >> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove >> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. >> >> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, >> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported >> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the >> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. >> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the >> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting >> new features for a few years already. >> >> Does that make sense? > > Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would > be great to know your plans for this patch set. > > Thanks, > fbl > Hi Flavio and Ilya, I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break something with every attempt but I will keep at it. What's my time frame before the freeze? >>> >>> The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation >>> for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this >>> in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. >>> So, we have about 6 weeks. >>> >>> If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately >>> by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you out. I'm >>> not sure if we have experts on debian packaging though. Maybe we >>> can ask some folks from Canonical. They do their own packaging, but >>> should know a thing or two about packaging in general. >> >> We'd be happy to help out with the packaging bits. >> >> Both Debian and Ubuntu
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 5/31/2022 12:22 PM, Frode Nordahl wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and OVS form the same branch, obviously. Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting new features for a few years already. Does that make sense? Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would be great to know your plans for this patch set. Thanks, fbl Hi Flavio and Ilya, I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break something with every attempt but I will keep at it. What's my time frame before the freeze? The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. So, we have about 6 weeks. If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you out. I'm not sure if we have experts on debian packaging though. Maybe we can ask some folks from Canonical. They do their own packaging, but should know a thing or two about packaging in general. We'd be happy to help out with the packaging bits. Both Debian and Ubuntu have drifted away from what is currently in the debian/ folder in the OVS and OVN repositories. This state is problematic because from time to time someone tries to build packages from the OVS/OVN debian package source and then expect that package to work with up-/down-grades from-/to/ distro versions. So we would prefer to either remove what's there and replace it with a README pointing to Debian and Ubuntu package sources, or update what's there to match packaging state du jour. I'm fine with either solution but someone else would have to update the debian packaging. If just removing then I could do that and then update the documentation. I'll wait to see what the consensus is. Thanks, - Greg
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ilya Maximets wrote: > > On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > > > On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > >> > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >>> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > > It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > > towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > > in it's place [1]. > > > > This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > > primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > > > > A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > > module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never > > actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > > well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil > > attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > > B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > > could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > > install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing > > that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to > > read and understand that code better. > > C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that > > will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for > > the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > > > > Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > > > > 1. > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html > > I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS > Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it > easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the > Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. > > The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still > preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for > older Linux distributions. > > Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit > overly aggressive. > > Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? > >>> > >>> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch > >>> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. > >>> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. > >>> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about > >>> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that > >>> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and > >>> OVS form the same branch, obviously. > >>> > >>> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove > >>> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. > >>> > >>> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, > >>> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported > >>> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the > >>> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. > >>> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the > >>> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting > >>> new features for a few years already. > >>> > >>> Does that make sense? > >> > >> Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would > >> be great to know your plans for this patch set. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> fbl > >> > > > > Hi Flavio and Ilya, > > > > I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues > > with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never > > worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break > > something with every attempt but I will keep at it. > > > > What's my time frame before the freeze? > > The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation > for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this > in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. > So, we have about 6 weeks. > > If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately > by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you out. I'm > not sure if we have experts on debian packaging though. Maybe we > can ask some folks from Canonical. They do their own packaging, but > should know a thing or two about packaging in general. We'd be happy to help out with the packaging bits. Both Debian and Ubuntu have drifted away from what is currently in the debian/ folder in the OVS and OVN repositories. This state is problematic because from time to time someone tries to build packages from the OVS/OVN debian package source and then expect
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 5/31/22 17:36, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > in it's place [1]. > > This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > > A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never > actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil > attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing > that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to > read and understand that code better. > C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that > will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for > the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > > Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > > 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? >>> >>> Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch >>> doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. >>> It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. >>> This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about >>> possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that >>> branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and >>> OVS form the same branch, obviously. >>> >>> Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove >>> the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. >>> >>> And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, >>> but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported >>> version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the >>> out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. >>> And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the >>> version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting >>> new features for a few years already. >>> >>> Does that make sense? >> >> Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would >> be great to know your plans for this patch set. >> >> Thanks, >> fbl >> > > Hi Flavio and Ilya, > > I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues > with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never > worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break > something with every attempt but I will keep at it. > > What's my time frame before the freeze? The "soft-freeze" supposed to be on July 1st. The branch creation for a new release - mid July. It would be great if we can get this in before the soft freeze, but branching point is also fine. So, we have about 6 weeks. If you can think of any part of the work that can be done separately by someone else, we could try and find someone to help you out. I'm not sure if we have experts on debian packaging though. Maybe we can ask some folks from Canonical. They do their own packaging, but should know a thing or two about packaging in general. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 5/25/2022 6:47 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and OVS form the same branch, obviously. Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting new features for a few years already. Does that make sense? Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would be great to know your plans for this patch set. Thanks, fbl Hi Flavio and Ilya, I'll go ahead with the plans as per previous agreements - having issues with removing the debian kernel module support since I have never worked on debian rules type make environments. I seem to break something with every attempt but I will keep at it. What's my time frame before the freeze? Thanks, - Greg ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
Hi Greg, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > > > On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: > >> It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push > >> towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver > >> in it's place [1]. > >> > >> This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few > >> primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. > >> > >> A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver > >> module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never > >> actually made any changes in that area and do not have a > >> well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil > >> attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. > >> B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I > >> could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use > >> install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing > >> that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to > >> read and understand that code better. > >> C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that > >> will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for > >> the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) > >> > >> Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! > >> > >> 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html > > > > I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS > > Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it > > easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the > > Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. > > > > The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still > > preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for > > older Linux distributions. > > > > Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit > > overly aggressive. > > > > Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? > > Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch > doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. > It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. > This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about > possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that > branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and > OVS form the same branch, obviously. > > Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove > the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. > > And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, > but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported > version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the > out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. > And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the > version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting > new features for a few years already. > > Does that make sense? Any thoughts on this? The freeze time is approaching, so it would be great to know your plans for this patch set. Thanks, fbl ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 5/19/22 20:04, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: >> It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push >> towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver >> in it's place [1]. >> >> This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few >> primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. >> >> A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver >> module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never >> actually made any changes in that area and do not have a >> well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil >> attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. >> B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I >> could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use >> install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing >> that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to >> read and understand that code better. >> C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that >> will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for >> the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) >> >> Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! >> >> 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html > > I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS > Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it > easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the > Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. > > The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still > preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for > older Linux distributions. > > Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit > overly aggressive. > > Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? Hi. I think we discussed that before. Removal from the master branch doesn't mean that we will stop supporting the kernel module immediately. It will remain in branch 2.17 which will become our new LTS series soon. This branch will be supported until 2025. And we also talked about possibility of extending the support just for a kernel module on that branch, if required. It's not necassary to use the kernel module and OVS form the same branch, obviously. Removal from the master branch will just make it possible to remove the maintenance burden eventually, not right away. And FWIW, the goal is not to force everyone to use userspace datapath, but remove a maintenance burden and push users to use a better supported version of a code. Frankly, we're not doing a great job supporting the out-of-tree module these days. It's getting hard to backport bug fixes. And will be even harder over time since the code drifts away from the version in the upstream kernel. Mainly because we're not backporting new features for a few years already. Does that make sense? > > Thanks, > > - Greg > > >> >> Greg Rose (6): >> acinclude.m4: Remove support for building the OVS kernel module >> rhel: Remove kernel mode spec >> rhel: Remove RHEL 6 kernel module spec >> tests: Remove support for check-kmod test >> Documentation: Remove kernel module documentation >> Disable unsupported kernel builds >> >> .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml | 35 - >> Documentation/faq/releases.rst | 5 +- >> .../contributing/backporting-patches.rst | 7 + >> Documentation/intro/install/fedora.rst | 24 - >> Documentation/intro/install/general.rst | 63 -- >> acinclude.m4 | 683 +- >> rhel/automake.mk | 17 - >> rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in | 123 >> rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in | 152 >> tests/automake.mk | 6 - >> 10 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1104 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in >> delete mode 100644 rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in >> > ___ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
On 4/15/2022 2:42 PM, Greg Rose wrote: It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html I would like to suggest at this time that rather than removing the OVS Linux kernel path that we "freeze" it at Linux 5.8. This will make it easier for some consumers of OVS that are continuing to support the Linux kernel datapath in old distributions. The ultimate goal of shifting toward DPDK and AFXDP datapaths is still preserved but we are placing less burden on some consumers of OVS for older Linux distributions. Perhaps in suggesting removal of the kernel datapath I was being a bit overly aggressive. Thoughts? Concerns? Other suggestions? Thanks, - Greg Greg Rose (6): acinclude.m4: Remove support for building the OVS kernel module rhel: Remove kernel mode spec rhel: Remove RHEL 6 kernel module spec tests: Remove support for check-kmod test Documentation: Remove kernel module documentation Disable unsupported kernel builds .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml | 35 - Documentation/faq/releases.rst| 5 +- .../contributing/backporting-patches.rst | 7 + Documentation/intro/install/fedora.rst| 24 - Documentation/intro/install/general.rst | 63 -- acinclude.m4 | 683 +- rhel/automake.mk | 17 - rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in | 123 rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in | 152 tests/automake.mk | 6 - 10 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1104 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in delete mode 100644 rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
[ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove OVS kernel driver
It is time to remove support for the OVS kernel driver and push towards use of the upstream Linux openvswitch kernel driver in it's place [1]. This patch series represents a first attempt but there are a few primary remaining issues that I have yet to address. A) Removal of debian packing support for the dkms kernel driver module. The debian/rules are not well known to me - I've never actually made any changes in that area and do not have a well formed understanding of how debian packaging works. I wil attempt to fix that up in upcoming patch series. B) Figuring out how the github workflow - I removed the tests I could find that depend on the Linux kernel (i.e. they use install_kernel() function. Several other tests are failing that would not seem to depend on the Linux kernel. I need to read and understand that code better. C) There are many Linux specific source modules in the datapath that will need eventual removal but some headers are still required for the userspace code (which seems counterintuitive but...) Reviews, suggestions, etc. are appreciated! 1. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2022-April/393292.html Greg Rose (6): acinclude.m4: Remove support for building the OVS kernel module rhel: Remove kernel mode spec rhel: Remove RHEL 6 kernel module spec tests: Remove support for check-kmod test Documentation: Remove kernel module documentation Disable unsupported kernel builds .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml | 35 - Documentation/faq/releases.rst| 5 +- .../contributing/backporting-patches.rst | 7 + Documentation/intro/install/fedora.rst| 24 - Documentation/intro/install/general.rst | 63 -- acinclude.m4 | 683 +- rhel/automake.mk | 17 - rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in | 123 rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in | 152 tests/automake.mk | 6 - 10 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1104 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 rhel/kmod-openvswitch-rhel6.spec.in delete mode 100644 rhel/openvswitch-kmod-fedora.spec.in -- 2.17.1 ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
