| Message ID | 1560929189-14096-2-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [ovs-dev,v2,1/2] travis: Do not patch dpdk sources. | expand |
On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git reference. > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to this > reference (to save some disk), > - else, any other string which is understood as an official release. > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org. > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> > --- > Changelog since v1: > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in the logs > > --- Thanks! I tested this patch with: - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" and - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" Works fine. So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> wrote: > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git reference. > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to this > > reference (to save some disk), > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official release. > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> > > --- > > Changelog since v1: > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in the logs > > > > --- > > > Thanks! > > I tested this patch with: > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > and > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > Works fine. > Thanks Ilya. I could have detailed my non-reg tests: - DPDK=1 - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 DPDK_GIT= http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, right?
On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git reference. > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to this > > reference (to save some disk), > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official release. > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org <http://dpdk.org>. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > --- > > Changelog since v1: > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in the logs > > > > --- > > > Thanks! > > I tested this patch with: > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > and > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > Works fine. > > > Thanks Ilya. > > I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > - DPDK=1 > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable > > > > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, right? Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
> On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com > <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > > > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > reference. > > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to > > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to this > > > reference (to save some disk), > > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > release. > > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org <http://dpdk.org>. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > > --- > > > Changelog since v1: > > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in > the logs > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > I tested this patch with: > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > > > and > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > > > Works fine. > > > > > > Thanks Ilya. > > > > I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > > - DPDK=1 > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > stable > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > stable > > > > > > > > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > > > > > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, right? > > Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > > Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. Thanks Ian > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
> -----Original Message----- > From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- > bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand > <david.marchand@redhat.com> > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to build > against a dpdk branch. > > > On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com > > <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > > > > > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > > > > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > > reference. > > > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to > > > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to > this > > > > reference (to save some disk), > > > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > > release. > > > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org > <http://dpdk.org>. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > > <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > > > --- > > > > Changelog since v1: > > > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in > > the logs > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > I tested this patch with: > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > > DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > > > > > and > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > > > > > Works fine. > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ilya. > > > > > > I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > > > - DPDK=1 > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 > DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > stable > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > stable > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > > > > > > > > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, right? > > > > Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > > > > Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? > > Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a > few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase we want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to 18.08 etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL changes we've had on master. I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it did avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? Ian > > Thanks > Ian > > > > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- > > bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM > > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand > > <david.marchand@redhat.com> > > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to build > > against a dpdk branch. > > > > > On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets > <i.maximets@samsung.com > > > <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. > > > > > > > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > > > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > > > reference. > > > > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points > to > > > > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to > > this > > > > > reference (to save some disk), > > > > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > > > release. > > > > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org > > <http://dpdk.org>. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > > > <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changelog since v1: > > > > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > > > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision > in > > > the logs > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > I tested this patch with: > > > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > > > DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > > > > > > > Works fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ilya. > > > > > > > > I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > > > > - DPDK=1 > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 > > DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > > stable > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 > DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > > stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, > right? > > > > > > Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > > > > > > Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? > > > > Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a > > few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. > > Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase we > want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? > > Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being > applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in > dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to 18.08 > etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL > changes we've had on master. > > I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest > branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. > > I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it did > avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually use commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help accredit the authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these commit ID's change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have incorrect commit ID etc. in the commit message. I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach and hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use dpdk-merge branches). Do you have a way around this? Thanks Ian > > Ian > > > > Thanks > > Ian > > > > > > > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > _______________________________________________ > > dev mailing list > > dev@openvswitch.org > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:57 PM Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- > > > bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian > > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM > > > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand > > > <david.marchand@redhat.com> > > > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to build > > > against a dpdk branch. > > > > > > > On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets > > <i.maximets@samsung.com > > > > <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and > tags. > > > > > > > > > > > > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > > > > > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > > > > reference. > > > > > > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points > > to > > > > > > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to > > > this > > > > > > reference (to save some disk), > > > > > > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > > > > release. > > > > > > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org > > > <http://dpdk.org>. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > > > > <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Changelog since v1: > > > > > > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > > > > > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision > > in > > > > the logs > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > I tested this patch with: > > > > > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > > > > DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > > > > > > > > > Works fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ilya. > > > > > > > > > > I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > > > > > - DPDK=1 > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 > > > DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > > > stable > > > > > - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 > > DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > > > stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, > > right? > > > > > > > > Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > > > > > > > > Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? > > > > > > Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a > > > few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. > > > > Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase we > > want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? > > > > Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being > > applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in > > dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to 18.08 > > etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL > > changes we've had on master. > > > > I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest > > branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. > > > > I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it > did > > avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? > > To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the > commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually use > commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help accredit the > authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these commit ID's > change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have incorrect > commit ID etc. in the commit message. > > I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach and > hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use > dpdk-merge branches). > > Do you have a way around this? > My two cents, you could : - put a tag on the dpdk-latest branch before rebasing so that the ids live in the repository, - work directly in the ovs master branch to support the dpdk master branch and hope that with the ABI/API stability work that is in discussion, the #ifdef DPDK_VERSION will disappear in the future ;-)
On 20.06.2019 14:56, Stokes, Ian wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- >>> bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian >>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM >>> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand >>> <david.marchand@redhat.com> >>> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> >>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to build >>> against a dpdk branch. >>> >>>> On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets >> <i.maximets@samsung.com >>>> <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: >>>>> > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. >>>>> > >>>>> > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: >>>>> > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git >>>> reference. >>>>> > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points >> to >>>>> > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to >>> this >>>>> > reference (to save some disk), >>>>> > - else, any other string which is understood as an official >>>> release. >>>>> > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org >>> <http://dpdk.org>. >>>>> > >>>>> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com >>>> <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> >>>>> > --- >>>>> > Changelog since v1: >>>>> > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames >>>>> > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision >> in >>>> the logs >>>>> > >>>>> > --- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> I tested this patch with: >>>>> >>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" >>>> DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" >>>>> >>>>> Works fine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Ilya. >>>>> >>>>> I could have detailed my non-reg tests: >>>>> - DPDK=1 >>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 >>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 >>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- >>>> stable >>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 >> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- >>>> stable >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, >> right? >>>> >>>> Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. >>>> >>>> Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? >>> >>> Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a >>> few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. >> >> Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase we >> want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? >> >> Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being >> applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in >> dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to 18.08 >> etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL >> changes we've had on master. Actually, these patches: 7f021f902bb3 ("netdev-dpdk: Upgrade to dpdk v18.08") 270d9216f1ed ("netdev-dpdk: Set scatter based on capabilities") bef2cdc8f412 ("netdev-dpdk: Fix returning the field of malloced struct.") 73c1a65167fc ("redhat: change variable used for non-root user support") eb485f60ce44 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") was already incorporated into: 03f3f9c0faf8 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") So, could be just skipped while rebasing. IIUC, in the end there should be only 2 patches on top of master. One for meter color and one for rte_ prefix. >> >> I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest >> branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. Yes, this will require the force-push. >> >> I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it did >> avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? > > To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually use commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help accredit the authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these commit ID's change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have incorrect commit ID etc. in the commit message. > > I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach and hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use dpdk-merge branches). > > Do you have a way around this? As David suggested we may tag current branch before rebase to not loose the hashes. However, there was a simple squash of these commits and there was no important information we could loose. For the future, we could avoid such issues by using more permanent pointers like mail-list/patchwork links instead of git hashes from different/unreliable branches. > > Thanks > Ian >> >> Ian >>> >>> Thanks >>> Ian >>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev mailing list >>> dev@openvswitch.org >>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
On 20.06.2019 15:10, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 20.06.2019 14:56, Stokes, Ian wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- >>>> bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM >>>> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand >>>> <david.marchand@redhat.com> >>>> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to build >>>> against a dpdk branch. >>>> >>>>> On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets >>> <i.maximets@samsung.com >>>>> <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: >>>>>> > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: >>>>>> > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git >>>>> reference. >>>>>> > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points >>> to >>>>>> > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to >>>> this >>>>>> > reference (to save some disk), >>>>>> > - else, any other string which is understood as an official >>>>> release. >>>>>> > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org >>>> <http://dpdk.org>. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com >>>>> <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> >>>>>> > --- >>>>>> > Changelog since v1: >>>>>> > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames >>>>>> > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision >>> in >>>>> the logs >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> I tested this patch with: >>>>>> >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" >>>>> DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" >>>>>> >>>>>> Works fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Ilya. >>>>>> >>>>>> I could have detailed my non-reg tests: >>>>>> - DPDK=1 >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 >>>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- >>>>> stable >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 >>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- >>>>> stable >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, >>> right? >>>>> >>>>> Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. >>>>> >>>>> Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? >>>> >>>> Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were a >>>> few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. >>> >>> Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase we >>> want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? >>> >>> Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being >>> applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in >>> dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to 18.08 >>> etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL >>> changes we've had on master. > > > Actually, these patches: > > 7f021f902bb3 ("netdev-dpdk: Upgrade to dpdk v18.08") > 270d9216f1ed ("netdev-dpdk: Set scatter based on capabilities") > bef2cdc8f412 ("netdev-dpdk: Fix returning the field of malloced struct.") > 73c1a65167fc ("redhat: change variable used for non-root user support") > eb485f60ce44 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > was already incorporated into: > > 03f3f9c0faf8 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > So, could be just skipped while rebasing. > IIUC, in the end there should be only 2 patches on top of master. > One for meter color and one for rte_ prefix. > >>> >>> I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest >>> branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. > > Yes, this will require the force-push. > >>> >>> I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it did >>> avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? >> >> To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually use commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help accredit the authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these commit ID's change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have incorrect commit ID etc. in the commit message. >> >> I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach and hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use dpdk-merge branches). >> >> Do you have a way around this? > > As David suggested we may tag current branch before rebase to not loose > the hashes. However, there was a simple squash of these commits and there > was no important information we could loose. For the future, we could > avoid such issues by using more permanent pointers like mail-list/patchwork > links instead of git hashes from different/unreliable branches. > To be clear, I think that having cross-branch pointers in a git repo is a bad practice. >> >> Thanks >> Ian >>> >>> Ian >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Ian >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dev mailing list >>>> dev@openvswitch.org >>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > >
> On 20.06.2019 15:10, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > On 20.06.2019 14:56, Stokes, Ian wrote: > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- > >>>> bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM > >>>> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand > >>>> <david.marchand@redhat.com> > >>>> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to > build > >>>> against a dpdk branch. > >>>> > >>>>> On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets > >>> <i.maximets@samsung.com > >>>>> <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > >>>>>> > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and > tags. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > >>>>>> > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > >>>>> reference. > >>>>>> > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points > >>> to > >>>>>> > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to > >>>> this > >>>>>> > reference (to save some disk), > >>>>>> > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > >>>>> release. > >>>>>> > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org > >>>> <http://dpdk.org>. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > >>>>> <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > >>>>>> > --- > >>>>>> > Changelog since v1: > >>>>>> > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > >>>>>> > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision > >>> in > >>>>> the logs > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > --- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I tested this patch with: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > >>>>> DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Works fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Ilya. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 > >>>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > >>>>> stable > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 > >>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > >>>>> stable > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, > >>> right? > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there were > a > >>>> few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. > >>> > >>> Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a rebase > we > >>> want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? > >>> > >>> Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are being > >>> applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes in > >>> dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to > 18.08 > >>> etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the HOWL > >>> changes we've had on master. > > > > > > Actually, these patches: > > > > 7f021f902bb3 ("netdev-dpdk: Upgrade to dpdk v18.08") > > 270d9216f1ed ("netdev-dpdk: Set scatter based on capabilities") > > bef2cdc8f412 ("netdev-dpdk: Fix returning the field of malloced > struct.") > > 73c1a65167fc ("redhat: change variable used for non-root user > support") > > eb485f60ce44 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > > > was already incorporated into: > > > > 03f3f9c0faf8 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > > > So, could be just skipped while rebasing. > > IIUC, in the end there should be only 2 patches on top of master. > > One for meter color and one for rte_ prefix. > > Ya, good point, I'm doing that right now and comes across cleaner (at least from commits we're not moving from 18.11.1 to 18.08 etc, which doesn’t look right). > >>> > >>> I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest > >>> branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. > > > > Yes, this will require the force-push. > > Ok, I think this is ok if others are ok with it? I think it's worth it. > >>> > >>> I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but it > did > >>> avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? > >> > >> To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the > commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually > use commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help accredit > the authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these commit > ID's change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have incorrect > commit ID etc. in the commit message. > >> > >> I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach and > hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use > dpdk-merge branches). > >> > >> Do you have a way around this? > > > > As David suggested we may tag current branch before rebase to not loose > > the hashes. However, there was a simple squash of these commits and > there > > was no important information we could loose. For the future, we could > > avoid such issues by using more permanent pointers like mail- > list/patchwork > > links instead of git hashes from different/unreliable branches. > > > > To be clear, I think that having cross-branch pointers in a git repo is a > bad practice. > I agree, in hindsight it would have been better to use maillist. Live and learn :). I'm just running some smoke tests now on the rebase to make sure all is fucntions as expected with dpdk master, if it's all ok I'll push this evening. Ian > >> > >> Thanks > >> Ian > >>> > >>> Ian > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Ian > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> dev mailing list > >>>> dev@openvswitch.org > >>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > > > >
> > On 20.06.2019 15:10, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > > On 20.06.2019 14:56, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: ovs-dev-bounces@openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev- > > >>>> bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Stokes, Ian > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:53 AM > > >>>> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>; David Marchand > > >>>> <david.marchand@redhat.com> > > >>>> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] travis: Make it possible to > > build > > >>>> against a dpdk branch. > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 19.06.2019 14:35, David Marchand wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:22 PM Ilya Maximets > > >>> <i.maximets@samsung.com > > >>>>> <mailto:i.maximets@samsung.com>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 19.06.2019 10:26, David Marchand wrote: > > >>>>>> > Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and > > tags. > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: > > >>>>>> > - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git > > >>>>> reference. > > >>>>>> > This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value > points > > >>> to > > >>>>>> > https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing > to > > >>>> this > > >>>>>> > reference (to save some disk), > > >>>>>> > - else, any other string which is understood as an official > > >>>>> release. > > >>>>>> > This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org > > >>>> <http://dpdk.org>. > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com > > >>>>> <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > >>>>>> > --- > > >>>>>> > Changelog since v1: > > >>>>>> > - removed (now unneeded) directory renames > > >>>>>> > - added a "git log" so that we have the current git > revision > > >>> in > > >>>>> the logs > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > --- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I tested this patch with: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_GIT="https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable" > > >>>>> DPDK_VER="refs/heads/18.11" > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER="refs/heads/master" > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Works fine. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks Ilya. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I could have detailed my non-reg tests: > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=18.11.2 > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/tags/v18.11.2 > > >>>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > >>>>> stable > > >>>>>> - DPDK=1 DPDK_VER=refs/heads/18.11 > > >>> DPDK_GIT=http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk- > > >>>>> stable > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So, I pushed this and the previous patch to master. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cool, so I suppose you will handle the changes on dpdk-latest, > > >>> right? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Not sure. Ian managed these branches (hwol, latest) previously. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ian, will you rebase dpdk-latest onto current master? > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes, I'll look at this today. I know when I look last week there > were > > a > > >>>> few conflicts to be resolved. So will sort these. > > >>> > > >>> Hi Ilya, just started looking at this again, are yu sure it's a > rebase > > we > > >>> want here i.e. rebase dpdk-latest on master? > > >>> > > >>> Essentially we what I'm seeing is as the dpdk-latest changes are > being > > >>> applied ontop of the least master history all the previous changes > in > > >>> dpdk-latest have to re-applied include changes such as upgrade to > > 18.08 > > >>> etc. it's just making it a bit messy, especially with some of the > HOWL > > >>> changes we've had on master. > > > > > > > > > Actually, these patches: > > > > > > 7f021f902bb3 ("netdev-dpdk: Upgrade to dpdk v18.08") > > > 270d9216f1ed ("netdev-dpdk: Set scatter based on capabilities") > > > bef2cdc8f412 ("netdev-dpdk: Fix returning the field of malloced > > struct.") > > > 73c1a65167fc ("redhat: change variable used for non-root user > > support") > > > eb485f60ce44 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > > > > > was already incorporated into: > > > > > > 03f3f9c0faf8 ("dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.") > > > > > > So, could be just skipped while rebasing. > > > IIUC, in the end there should be only 2 patches on top of master. > > > One for meter color and one for rte_ prefix. > > > > > Ya, good point, I'm doing that right now and comes across cleaner (at > least from commits we're not moving from 18.11.1 to 18.08 etc, which > doesn’t look right). > > > >>> > > >>> I'm also think would it not require a force push to the dpdk-latest > > >>> branch? The re-write of the commit history will change etc. > > > > > > Yes, this will require the force-push. > > > > > Ok, I think this is ok if others are ok with it? I think it's worth it. > > > >>> > > >>> I know the merge process wasn't ideal from a commit history POV but > it > > did > > >>> avoid issues such as this in the past. What are your thoughts? > > >> > > >> To provide a better example, what I mean would be if you look at the > > commit for moving to 18.11 on master, in the commit message we actually > > use commit IDs form commits to dpdk-latest to reference and help > accredit > > the authorship of work. If we rebase dpdk-latest with master, these > commit > > ID's change in the dpdk-latest branch, meaning in master we have > incorrect > > commit ID etc. in the commit message. > > >> > > >> I guess that’s what I was trying to avoid with the rebase approach > and > > hence why I had used the merge approach (similar to how we used to use > > dpdk-merge branches). > > >> > > >> Do you have a way around this? > > > > > > As David suggested we may tag current branch before rebase to not > loose > > > the hashes. However, there was a simple squash of these commits and > > there > > > was no important information we could loose. For the future, we could > > > avoid such issues by using more permanent pointers like mail- > > list/patchwork > > > links instead of git hashes from different/unreliable branches. > > > > > > > To be clear, I think that having cross-branch pointers in a git repo is > a > > bad practice. > > > > I agree, in hindsight it would have been better to use maillist. Live and > learn :). > > I'm just running some smoke tests now on the rebase to make sure all is > fucntions as expected with dpdk master, if it's all ok I'll push this > evening. Tests came back ok so I've pushed the rebase to dpdk-latest branch. Thasnk for the help here. I assume we want the same for dpdk-hwol, except in this case we rebase from dpdk-latest (after dpdk-latest has just been rebased to master and pushed). Ian
diff --git a/.travis/linux-build.sh b/.travis/linux-build.sh index 3a5c4a2..9d84411 100755 --- a/.travis/linux-build.sh +++ b/.travis/linux-build.sh @@ -65,16 +65,16 @@ function install_kernel() function install_dpdk() { - if [ -n "$DPDK_GIT" ]; then - git clone $DPDK_GIT dpdk-$1 - cd dpdk-$1 - git checkout tags/v$1 + if [ "${1##refs/*/}" != "${1}" ]; then + DPDK_GIT=${DPDK_GIT:-https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk} + git clone --single-branch $DPDK_GIT dpdk-git -b "${1##refs/*/}" + cd dpdk-git + git log -1 --oneline else wget https://fast.dpdk.org/rel/dpdk-$1.tar.xz tar xvf dpdk-$1.tar.xz > /dev/null DIR_NAME=$(tar -tf dpdk-$1.tar.xz | head -1 | cut -f1 -d"/") - if [ $DIR_NAME != "dpdk-$1" ]; then mv $DIR_NAME dpdk-$1; fi - cd dpdk-$1 + cd $DIR_NAME fi make config CC=gcc T=$TARGET @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ function install_dpdk() sed -i '/CONFIG_RTE_KNI_KMOD=y/s/=y/=n/' build/.config make -j4 CC=gcc EXTRA_CFLAGS='-fPIC' + EXTRA_OPTS="$EXTRA_OPTS --with-dpdk=$(pwd)/build" echo "Installed DPDK source in $(pwd)" cd .. } @@ -111,7 +112,6 @@ if [ "$DPDK" ] || [ "$DPDK_SHARED" ]; then # Disregard cast alignment errors until DPDK is fixed CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wno-cast-align" fi - EXTRA_OPTS="$EXTRA_OPTS --with-dpdk=$(pwd)/dpdk-$DPDK_VER/build" fi OPTS="$EXTRA_OPTS $*"
Rework the build script so that we can pass branches and tags. With this, DPDK_VER can be passed as: - a string starting with refs/ which is understood as a git reference. This triggers a git clone on DPDK_GIT (default value points to https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk) for a single branch pointing to this reference (to save some disk), - else, any other string which is understood as an official release. This triggers a tarball download on dpdk.org. Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> --- Changelog since v1: - removed (now unneeded) directory renames - added a "git log" so that we have the current git revision in the logs --- .travis/linux-build.sh | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)