> -----Original Message----- > From: dev <ovs-dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> On Behalf Of William Tu > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:00 AM > To: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> > Cc: <d...@openvswitch.org> <d...@openvswitch.org>; Sergey Madaminov > <sergey.madami...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/1] use meson and ninja as a build system > for ovs > > Hi Ilya, > > Thanks for your feedback! > > > Hi, Sergey and William. Thanks for working on this.
Hey All, Nice RFC! Re cloning from github & running meson commands, I had to run the following as the file isn't renamed in upstream commit (for future readers): $ git mv lib/dirs.c.in lib/dirs.c.in.meson I manually decreased the required Meson version, all compiled fine after that! > > I think that it might be a good idea to move to a different build system > > that will not be that painful to run on Windows. I'm not working on > > Windows parts, but it would be great to have a fast CI that can confirm > > that everything still working fine. > > Yes, and avoiding the msys/mingw makes coding and debugging on windows > much easier. Generally +1 for Meson from me, my DPDK experience has been positive, as has Meson for various smaller open source projects I've worked on. I'm happy to contribute to the Meson build-system enabling as far as the CPU-ISA enabling/AVX512 library code goes - although I think Sergey has a (commented) implementation of the "openvswitchavx512" library in the RFC patchset. > > However, as I already said in the discussion on GitHub, it seems to be > > very hard to migrate our testsuite that heavily depends on autotest. > > And without migrating the testsuite we will, probably, have to maintain > > two different build systems to be able to run tests. This, kind of, > > defeats the whole purpose of the change. > > Why is it very hard? > I thought once we find a way to add tests to meson, it's just > "mechanically" copying all these scripts into a new test framework. > It's a lot of tedious work, but hopefully not a difficult or impossible task. > > Or does current OVS autotests heavily depend on autotool/autoconf? > I see the test cases are pretty independent. I'm not very familiar with the tests, but today the AT_CHECK() syntax used to write the tests is pretty autotools specific. Agree that in theory running the commands from different test runner infrastructure shouldn't be an issue. As I'm not familiar as others here, I'll just be quiet on the topic :) > > Meson is a nice system in many aspects, but its support for tests is very > > limited. IIUC, it can only run a single binary and check the error codes. > > Most of our tests starts several daemons and performs several fairly complex > > operations and checks. I'm afraid that we will end up writing our own > > separate testing framework that will mimic autotest in order to be able to > > run our tests from meson. > > > > Did you think about this problem? Do you have a solution in mind? > > Thanks, we thought about it but I don't have a solution in mind at this > moment. > > Regards, > William > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
