On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:51 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > On 18.04.2019 14:26, David Marchand wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:27 PM Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com > <mailto:ktray...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 16/04/2019 10:45, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > Note: this patch requires a fix for the vhost library submitted > here: > > > http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/52680/ > > > > > > Without it, this change will do nothing but have openvswitch > complain > > > that the vhost device is unknown: > > > > > > dpdk|INFO|VHOST_CONFIG: vhost peer closed > > > dpdk|ERR|VHOST_CONFIG: (0) device not found. > > > > > > dpdk|INFO|VHOST_CONFIG: vhost peer closed > > > dpdk|ERR|VHOST_CONFIG: (1) device not found. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com <mailto: > david.march...@redhat.com>> > > > > I think this probably shouldn't be merged until OVS is using a > version > > of DPDK with the linked patch because it is introducing errors in the > > logs which can be alarming for a user. The DPDK fix should be part of > > DPDK 18.11.2. > > > > > > It sounds sane yes. > > Now, 18.11.2 is not ready yet (no pressure Kevin ;-)) as we just got > 18.11.1. > > > > Ilya, if we go that way, what do you think of considering the first > patch for merge now and the others two fixes for when 18.11.2 is ready ? > > I think, we can go with first two patches now and merge the last one when > the 18.11.2 ready. Second patch should not make any harm as all modern > drivers has F_MQ support and we'll not waste much time on polling disabled > queues. Anyway, polling of disabled queues better than guest-controllable > reconfigurations. We also need to think about backporting the second patch. > Ok, how should I proceed ? Can I still submit the 3 patches together, to finish handling the last comments ? -- David Marchand _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
