On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:14 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/8/23 09:17, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:02 AM Viacheslav Galaktionov via dev
> > <ovs-dev@openvswitch.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The set_error function is now used regardless of whether experimental APIs
> >> are allowed or not, so it must be defined unconditionally.
> >>
> >> Fixes: fc06ea9a1883 ("netdev-dpdk: Add custom rx-steering configuration.")
> >> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov
> >> <viacheslav.galaktio...@arknetworks.am>
> >> Acked-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
> >
> > Can we merge the dpdk-latest patch for checking experimental API
> > compilation in the master branch?
>
> I'd vote for removal of the code that requires experimental API
> from master instead and not accepting any new code that requires
> experimental API to branches other than dpdk-latest.
I was reacting to this fix being applied on the master branch, which
let the experimental code in place rather than drop it.
If we keep it, we need something in the CI to avoid future breakage.
Let's see what others think.
>
> Can the flow restoration API be stabilized until 23.11 release?
We have a common chicken/egg situation.
OVS wants to use "stable" API, but DPDK prefers marking an API stable
once there is feedback / a user of such API.
My intention is to mark it stable on DPDK side, based on OVS feedback.
As a next step, the point is on my side to send a OVS patch to make
use of this API update.
Hopefully, it will get a timely feedback so DPDK can mark the API
stable, before v23.11-rc1.
> I saw you made some progress on the mbuf flag. And I posted a
> small additional request not so long ago:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev/820c8ce1-091a-cd9b-2dd2-c830ff0a5...@ovn.org/
It is on my todo list as part of preparing the OVS patch.
--
David Marchand
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
