[ovs-dev] DPDK Merge Repo

[Stokes, Ian]

> Hi Darrell and Ben.
> 
> > Hi All
> >
> > As mentioned before, I am using a repo for DPDK patch merging.
> > The repo is here:
> > https://github.com/darball/ovs/
> >
> > There are still some outstanding patches from Bhanu that have not
> completed review yet:
> >
> > util: Add PADDED_MEMBERS_CACHELINE_MARKER macro to mark cachelines.-
> > Bhanu
> > packets: Reorganize the pkt_metadata structure. - Bhanu
> >
> > and a series we would like to get into 2.8
> >
> > netdev-dpdk: Use intermediate queue during packet transmission.  Bhanu
> > Jun 29/V3
> > netdev: Add netdev_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add netdev_dpdk_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add netdev_dpdk_vhost_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add intermediate queue support.
> > netdev-dpdk: Enable intermediate queue for             vHost User port.
> > dpif-netdev: Flush the packets in intermediate queue.
> 
> I think that we still not reached agreement about the level of
> implementation (netdev-dpdk or dpif-netdev). Just few people participate
> in discussion which is not very productive. I suggest not to target output
> batching for 2.8 release because of this and also lack of testing and
> review.
> As I understand, we have only 3 days merge window for the new features and
> I expect that we can't finish discussion, review and testing in time.
> 

My own opinion on this, this feature has been kicking around for quite a while,  the original patch from Bhanu went out back in December. https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2016-December/326348.html

There's a level of due diligence carried out in terms of reviewing and testing from a range of people in the community for the netdev approach and a number of users are already using this without issue. As such I would like this approach to be included in the 2.8 release.

I think the dpif layer is more generic and in the long run more maintainable but it was quite late in being flagged as an alternate approach and is not as mature in terms of testing/reviews. As such I don't think it should block the netdev approach until it has reached the same level of feedback and testing from the community. The dpif approach could target the 2.9 release after it has received more feedback and replace the netdev approach when the pros and cons of both have been clearly demonstrated.

Ian
 
> > Please let me know if something else is approved but missed ?
> > Anything else ?
> >
> > Thanks Darrell
> 
> 
> In addition I have a few general thoughts about merging via pull requests:
> 
> 1. There is a requirement described in contribution guide that submitter
>    must sign-off the patch. But merges on github doesn't work this way.
>    So, the patches should be cherry-picked with footer modifications by
>    submitter or contribution guide should be fixed to reflect pull
>    request workflow. I understand that authorship of the merge commit can
>    replace the sign-off somehow, but it's not so easy sometimes to find
>    the corresponding merge commit for particular change. And this still
>    doesn't mean that submitter agree with Developer's Certificate of
> Origin.
> 
> 2. I'm a fan of plain git history. Could we use 'Rebase and merge' policy
>    without merge commits ?
>    https://github.com/blog/2243-rebase-and-merge-pull-requests
> 
> PS: Ben, I'm sorry for the typo in your name in my previous letter.
> 
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev