Hello Valentine,

For the DPDK issue, you have to update the DPDK repo. Can you do
a repo sync and try.

Cheers,
Anand




On 5/18/17, 5:28 PM, "Valentine Sinitsyn" <[email protected]> wrote:

>These are good news, thanks for replying. Fixing yourself is typically 
>easier than someone else. :-)
>
>Yet may I ask you to have a look at [1]? It's pretty straightforward to 
>run this script manually to see it does the quotation wrong:
>
>char *ContrailBuildInfo = "{"build-info": ...
>
>Note the first quote: this is what makes dkms cry.
>
>As for DPDK, I'm referring to PKT_RX_GSO_TCP4 and PKT_RX_GSO_TCP6. Maybe 
>they come through command line options or some DPDK library I don't have 
>here.
>
>Anyways, the purpose of my message was not to blame OC of being poor 
>code quality, just about expectations. From what you say, I understand 
>that the code in master must at least compile and probably have the 
>testsuite passed.
>
>1. 
>https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-vrouter/blob/master/utils/dkms/gen_build_info.sh
>
>Best,
>Valentine
>
>On 18.05.2017 16:46, Jakub Pavlik wrote:
>> +1 I also see that every commit is validated and tested. There are not
>> any issues.
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Anand H Krishnan <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>     For point 1.
>>
>>     We compile code almost every day and for every commit. The commits
>>     do not go through if there are compilation failures. I haven’t
>>     heard any complaints about DKMS too.
>>
>>     Maybe there are issues indeed, but as of now its more likely that
>>     you are doing something different.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Anand
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 5/17/17, 11:20 AM, "Dev on behalf of Valentine Sinitsyn"
>>     <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     wrote:
>>
>>     >Hi,
>>     >
>>     >Those are valid points. I'd add a few more, if you don't mind:
>>     >
>>     >1. Code quality (esp. in master branch)
>>     >I've encountered undefined macros in vrouter-dpdk and shell escaping
>>     >issues in dkms scripts at the very least. Sure, this is trivial to fix,
>>     >yet it makes me think that either no one tried to compile those
>>     >components besides me (as this fails immediately) or I do something
>>     >awfully wrong. Which brings us to the second point:
>>     >
>>     >2. Public CI, maybe via Travis/Github badge
>>     >This is to make sure the code works at least in some environment, so I
>>     >can figure out what's wrong with mine. Aside issues mentioned
>>     above, BGP
>>     >stress test is failing now as well, and there is no way to figure
>>     out is
>>     >it my fault or the thing is currently broken.
>>     >
>>     >Setting clear expectations for master branch (such as: "may not even
>>     >compile", "should not break the testsuite, but may fail in corner cases
>>     >or under load", "we try to keep it as stable as possible and develop in
>>     >feature branches") would also be very helpful.
>>     >
>>     >Randy: enjoy your TBO! It was my pleasure to be at OCUG in Boston.
>>     >
>>     >Thanks,
>>     >Valentine
>>     >
>>     >On 16.05.2017 01:50, Edgar Magana wrote:
>>     >> Folks,
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> These are all excellent points. Would it be possible to have all
>>     these
>>     >> details in github repos?
>>     >>
>>     >> That will be easy to follow up the conversations instead of using
>>     email.
>>     >> Well, just my proposal. It is working well for other open source
>>     >> communities such as OpenStack.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Thanks,
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Edgar
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> *From: *Dev <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "CARVER,
>>     >> PAUL" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     >> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:06 AM
>>     >> *To: *"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
>>     >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     >> *Subject: *[opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Randy,
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Thanks for your presentation at the Open Contrail Users Group
>>     last week.
>>     >> Can you please post a public link to your slide deck for people
>>     who were
>>     >> unable to attend or who didn’t take phone photos of every slide.
>>     >> Especially, the link to the Google Group needs to go out so that
>>     >> everyone on the Dev mailing list can sign up.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> I have a list of potential topics for the first meeting of whatever
>>     >> forum you end up organizing.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>   * Compiling Contrail from source – There has been a fair amount of
>>     >>     discussion of this on the mailing list recently
>>     >>       o Discussion of issues people are encountering
>>     >>       o Build scripts
>>     >>       o Prerequisites
>>     >>       o Documentation of the build process
>>     >>   * Due dates
>>     >>       o An overview of current key dates in the process
>>     (blueprint, code
>>     >>         complete, testing, documentation, beta, GA)
>>     >>       o Discussion of any changes that might help contributors
>>     plan better
>>     >>       o Dates for dates – set expectations on how and when the
>>     key dates
>>     >>         for future releases will be set
>>     >>       o Missed date management – discussion of how slipped dates for
>>     >>         Juniper’s GA release impact community development
>>     >>   * Testing procedures
>>     >>       o Discussion of how third party developers should expect to
>>     >>         interact with Juniper during the time period between code
>>     freeze
>>     >>         and beta and GA
>>     >>       o Discussion of beta vs release candidate and whether there are
>>     >>         process improvements needed in order to ensure that third
>>     party
>>     >>         developers are able to catch and fix bugs in the features
>>     they
>>     >>         are developing
>>     >>       o Overview of test framework, not just unit tests but
>>     functional
>>     >>         and full stack automated tests
>>     >>   * Documentation
>>     >>       o How are non-Juniper developers expected to deliver
>>     documentation
>>     >>         for features that they develop?
>>     >>       o When is documentation due?
>>     >>   * Core reviewer / TSC / meetings
>>     >>       o What are the expectations for a non-Juniper developer to
>>     become
>>     >>         a core reviewer?
>>     >>       o Does Contrail have anything equivalent to a Technical
>>     Steering
>>     >>         Committee?
>>     >>       o Are there any regularly scheduled meetings (e.g. on
>>     Slack/IRC or
>>     >>         teleconference) for developers to sync up on progress of
>>     their
>>     >>         changes, discuss code reviews, discuss bugs, etc
>>     >>       o Build system problems – How can non-Juniper contributors
>>     >>         effectively troubleshoot issues like this:
>>     >>
>>      
>> https://jenkins.opencontrail.org/job/ci-contrail-vrouter-systest-ubuntu14-mitaka/480/console
>>     
>> <https://jenkins.opencontrail.org/job/ci-contrail-vrouter-systest-ubuntu14-mitaka/480/console>
>>     >>
>>      
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jenkins.opencontrail.org_job_ci-2Dcontrail-2Dvrouter-2Dsystest-2Dubuntu14-2Dmitaka_480_console&d=DwMFAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=672AiZ61UGMFTc1WfPGBmgJYUEzVnbC9i9hqKSlloZo&s=j-50PyEc_ppikIVehQAGlLvpHxEL8q7515cEI087XEo&e=
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jenkins.opencontrail.org_job_ci-2Dcontrail-2Dvrouter-2Dsystest-2Dubuntu14-2Dmitaka_480_console&d=DwMFAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=672AiZ61UGMFTc1WfPGBmgJYUEzVnbC9i9hqKSlloZo&s=j-50PyEc_ppikIVehQAGlLvpHxEL8q7515cEI087XEo&e=>>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> Dev mailing list
>>     >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     >>
>>     http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>>     
>> <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>
>>     >>
>>     >
>>     >_______________________________________________
>>     >Dev mailing list
>>     >[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     
>> >http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>>     
>> <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Dev mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>>     
>> <http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jakub Pavlik
>> +420 602 177 027
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>-- 
>С уважением,
>Синицын Валентин
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Reply via email to