[ovs-dev] [PATCH v4] datapath-windows: Enable checksum offloads in STT

Ben Pfaff blp at nicira.com
Fri Oct 2 14:13:09 UTC 2015


On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:32AM +0000, Nithin Raju wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:05:33PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','blp at nicira.com');>> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:49:49AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Nithin Raju <nithin at vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Nithin Raju <nithin at vmware.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> hi Jesse,
> >>>>>>> We are getting the Hyper-V solution to a state with the following
> >>> goals:
> >>>>>>> - Work “out of the box” ie. no need to make special settings such as
> >>> disabling checksum offload, TSO, etc.
> >>>>>>> - Reasonably stable
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Most of the patches we have checked in so far into 2.4 are geared
> >>> towards these two goals. Once all of the required changes go in, and we are
> >>> reasonably confident about the stability, we can hopefully make an
> >>> announcement about Hyper-V support.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> This is my concern - there should not be any announcements based on
> >>>>>> stable branches because there should be no development on stable
> >>>>>> branches. The only thing that should go in is targeted bug fixes to
> >>>>>> address issues that came up after the release.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> All of the goals that you listed are good things and make sense - on
> >>>>>> the master branch. However, I don't see a need to bring these back to
> >>>>>> 2.4. My guess is that there is no more churn in the common code on
> >>>>>> master than with the Windows patches here.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> So please just target 2.5 as the release to make an announcement about
> >>>>>> Hyper-V support. I promise that this release cycle won't be as long as
> >>>>>> 2.4.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Jesse,
> >>>>> We were hoping for a dot release off of 2.4. Like a 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 to
> >>> announce support. Would that not be the right release vehicle?
> >>>> 
> >>>> No, there should be no new features in point releases. 2.5 is the next
> >>>> release where it would makes sense to do this. My guess is that will
> >>>> be some time around the end of the year.
> >>> 
> >>> The patches I've seen from the Hyper-V developers so far are just in
> >>> Hyper-V specific code, that can't really affect the stability of the
> >>> rest of the platform.  I have questions about the value of doing this on
> >>> 2.4, given that 2.5 will branch in a reasonable amount of time, but
> >>> since they're eager to do it I'm not sure that it's worth discouraging
> >>> them ;-)
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I think it does cause problems for people who want to upgrade OVS in
> >> production deployments as often it is not desirable to just take a large
> >> set of changes wholesale for a bugfix release. If there are many unrelated
> >> commits for feature development it makes it harder to identify what is
> >> actually going on. I'm also not sure that it is true that there are no
> >> changes to common code.
> > 
> > Nithin, Alin, et al., why do you guys want this on branch-2.4 so badly?
> > Everything that Jesse is saying is right, and despite my initial
> > instincts I'm inclined to agree with him in the end.
> 
> Ben,
> Our goal is to get onto the next earliest release of OVS be it 2.5 or 2.4.1.
> 
> If you think that 2.5 will happen soon enough, we can wait for it. Otherwise, we are inclined to request a 2.4.1 release with Hyper-V support.
> 
> For now, we can commit to master, and perhaps decide in a month or so as to what the release branch should be. If it turns out to be 2.4.1, we’ll have to do a bunch of crossposts, and I can help with that.
> 
> Is that reasonable?

I think it's best to wait to branch 2.5.



More information about the dev mailing list