[ovs-discuss] include/sparse/rte_flow.h

[Ilya Maximets]

On 19.11.2019 19:01, Eli Britstein wrote:
> 
> On 11/19/2019 7:46 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> On 19.11.2019 18:29, Eli Britstein wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2019 7:27 PM, Eli Britstein wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I see this file has many inconsistencies against the one from DPDK
>>>> (18.11.2).
>>>>
>>>> For example, this API:
>>>>
>>>> rte_flow_query(uint16_t port_id,
>>>>             struct rte_flow *flow,
>>>>             enum rte_flow_action_type action,
>>>>             void *data,
>>>>             struct rte_flow_error *error);
>>>>
>>>> is wrong, vs the one from DPDK:
>>>>
>>>> rte_flow_query(uint16_t port_id,
>>>>             struct rte_flow *flow,
>>>>             const struct rte_flow_action *action,
>>>>             void *data,
>>>>             struct rte_flow_error *error);
>>>>
>>>> Note the "action" argument.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also see in it this line:
>>>>
>>>> #error "Use this header only with sparse.  It is not a correct
>>>> implementation."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, is it wrong on purpose? If so, why?
>>>>
>>>> I test my patch-set before I submit using travis, and it fails because
>>>> of this wrong file. Can we just take the correct code from DPDK?
>>>> Should I maybe take only the parts that cause me to fail?
>> Hi.  DPDK headers before 18.11.3 has issues that makes sparse unhappy.
>> This header will be removed along with upgrade to 18.11.3 or higher.
>> Right now we're not experiencing issues with current version of
>> sparse header probably just because we're not using most of the functions.
> I see. Thanks.
>>
>> We're not going to update this header only remove.  You may update it in
>> your patches or base your changes on top of dpdk-latest branch where this
>> header already removed.
> 
> So, what is the preferred way for submission?
> 
> 1. cherry-pick those commits from dpdk-latest on top of master and my 
> patches on top of that

This doesn't sound like a good option.
If sparse header needs only few small changes for your patches to work,
you may create a special patch for that.  If not, you may send patches
as-is but mention that these patches depends on a DPDK 18.11.3+ and another
patch that removes the sparse header.

> 
> 2. submit directly on dpdk-latest

Not sure about this option because dpdk-latest is mostly for changes that
requires most recent DPDK, but this is not exactly your case.

> 
>>
>> I'm not sure when we're going to migrate to 18.11.{3,5}.
>> @Ian, @Kevin, is validation still in progress?  Does anyone work on this?
> 
> Is it a question of "if" or "when"? what is the purpose of migrating to 
> 18.11.3/5 and not to 19.11 soon?

18.11.3/5 requires validation + small patch for docs/CI.
19.11 requires additional development that didn't started yet
      + validation + patch for docs/CI.

Plus, 18.11 needs to be upgraded on previous versions of OVS too.

With current speed of development and validation I will not be surprised if
19.11 will not be supported in next OVS release.

Best regards, Ilya Maximets.