[ovs-dev] OVS DPDK Latest & HWOL Branches

Ben Pfaff blp at ovn.org
Mon Aug 20 16:51:36 UTC 2018


On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 09:00:04AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:14:46PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:17:21AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:49:45PM +0100, Ian Stokes wrote:
> > > > On 8/14/2018 10:19 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:42:06PM +0000, Stokes, Ian wrote:
> > > > >>Recently at the OVS DPDK community meeting the case for 2 new branches was raised.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-August/350898.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >>These branches would be:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>(i) OVS DPDK Latest: This branch would essentially be OVS master using the latest DPDK release (Including non LTS releases).
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The purpose of this branch would be to allow OVS DPDK developers to assess the latest DPDK releases with OVS and provide feedback to the DPDK community if changes are required. Currently OVS transitions between supported DPDK releases using DPDK LTS releases only. DPDK LTS releases happen annually. The next DPDK LTS release would be 18.11. However the other non-lts DPDK releases (x.02, x.05, x.08) can introduce/change APIs that impact OVS DPDK (Such as the HWOL). This feedback would be in place for the next LTS release before OVS transitions to the next x.11 LTS.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>(ii) OVS DPDK HWOL: This branch would be forked from OVS DPDK Latest but would encompass the HWOL development work that is ongoing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The feeling as regards the need for a OVS DPDK HWOL branch is that it requires new features only available in the latest DPDK releases and that there will be a lot of code rework required as its validated with various HW devices over time before an acceptable solution will be in place.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>There was a question as regards the logistics of where the branches should reside. It was suggested that they could be part of the OVS Repo to centralize the development work but that is obviously something that would have to be raised with yourself and the other project maintainers.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>An alternative would be that it would be hosted on a developers GitHub repo similar to how the dpdk_merge branches currently work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Neither of the branches would be subject to releases as the end goal of the development work carried out on them would make its way into OVS Master eventually.
> > > > >
> > > > >This seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't overburden developers with
> > > > >branches.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree, and I think the messaging as regards its purpose of usage should be
> > > > clear, it's intended as a tool to aid development of features for intended
> > > > for OVS master in the future such as DPDK releases or . Developers could
> > > > ignore these branches if the features they develop are already available in
> > > > the existing supported DPDK.
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > >How do you prefer to host it?  Any of the following would be fine with
> > > > >me, in descending order of preference:
> > > > >
> > > > >* Host in openvswitch github repo forked from main openvswitch/ovs repo.
> > > > 
> > > > I think the option above would be good, better than being provisioned on a
> > > > developers own github repo. At least when documenting its purpose it would
> > > > look a little more official rather than pointing to a personal github repo.
> > > > 
> > > > In terms of commit access I take it the default ovs committers would have
> > > > access here as well (I take it they would be the people to create the repo).
> > > > In terms of merging would this follow the pull_request process to yourself?
> > > 
> > > I'd think it would make sense to give you the ability to push directly
> > > to this new repo.  It's only merging into release branches that the OVS
> > > contribution policy is supposed to gate.
> > 
> > I talked to Justin about this.  He pointed out that if we create a repo
> > with "dpdk" in the name, it's likely to confuse people who are casually
> > looking for OVS with DPDK support.  It still makes sense to do this in
> > some kind of "official" place, though, so now I'm willing to support the
> > idea of just putting the branches into the main OVS repo.  Let me check
> > with the committers list, first.
> 
> So far I've received two positive responses and no negatives to this
> idea from the committers.  I'll give it a while longer but I think we'll
> probably just have you do it in the main repo.

I didn't receive any more feedback, so I created a "dpdk" team, invited
you to it, and added read/write permission for the main openvswitch
repository.  This gives you technical access to all branches, but for
now please push directly only to the new dpdk-related branches you've
proposed; let's retain the existing process for other branches.

Thanks,

Ben.


More information about the dev mailing list