[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/16] port Jiri Benc's L3 patchset to ovs

[Yang, Yi Y]

I'll check how we can rebase your changes against those three patches on top of my patches, our goals are same, that is to merge your changes and this patch set to ovs. I don't know what order Joe will merge them in. Obviously one patch set can't depend on another one which isn't nailed down to merge or not.

Jan, let us have a sync by lync meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Scheurich [mailto:jan.scheurich at ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:19 AM
To: Joe Stringer <joe at ovn.org>; Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang at intel.com>; Jiri Benc (jbenc at redhat.com) <jbenc at redhat.com>; Eric Garver <e at erig.me>
Cc: dev at openvswitch.org
Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/16] port Jiri Benc's L3 patchset to ovs

Hi Yi,

Both Joe and Jarno have indicated there are no principle problems merging our self-contained user-space patches for L3 tunneling. May I suggest that you (together with Jiri and Eric) focus on the datapath back-ports and the user-space patches on top needed to configure L3 tunnels in the net-next and OVS tree kernel module.

/Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Stringer [mailto:joe at ovn.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 07 February, 2017 18:55
> To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang at intel.com>
> Cc: Jan Scheurich <jan.scheurich at ericsson.com>; dev at openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/16] port Jiri Benc's L3 patchset 
> to ovs
> 
> On 7 February 2017 at 05:28, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang at intel.com> wrote:
> > Jan, I know that, but per Joe's comments, it seems he won't merge your patch set unless the part in kernel side is merged before them.
> It can't work without these three patches.
> 
> I have primarily expressed concern about missing kernel patch 
> backports due to inconsistent backporting order. If Jan's series is 
> decoupled and still builds OK, tests OK, passes review, etc by itself 
> then I'm not sure I understand the dependency on the kernel patches.