On 11/29/23 17:04, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 15:35, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> On 11/29/23 16:31, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2023 15:19, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/23 15:13, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>>>> Update the CI and docs to use DPDK 22.11.3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Simon Horman <ho...@ovn.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml | 2 +-
>>>>>    Documentation/faq/releases.rst       | 8 ++++----
>>>>>    Documentation/intro/install/dpdk.rst | 8 ++++----
>>>>>    NEWS                                 | 2 ++
>>>>>    4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/.github/workflows/build-and-test.yml 
>>>>> b/.github/workflows/build-and-test.yml
>>>>> index bc5494e86..fd911c110 100644
>>>>> --- a/.github/workflows/build-and-test.yml
>>>>> +++ b/.github/workflows/build-and-test.yml
>>>>> @@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ jobs:
>>>>>          CC: gcc
>>>>>          DPDK_GIT: https://dpdk.org/git/dpdk-stable
>>>>> -      DPDK_VER: 22.11.1
>>>>> +      DPDK_VER: 22.11.3
>>>>>        name: dpdk gcc
>>>>>        outputs:
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/faq/releases.rst 
>>>>> b/Documentation/faq/releases.rst
>>>>> index e6bda14e7..362bf4ec7 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/faq/releases.rst
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/faq/releases.rst
>>>>> @@ -216,8 +216,8 @@ Q: What DPDK version does each Open vSwitch release 
>>>>> work with?
>>>>>        2.15.x       20.11.6
>>>>>        2.16.x       20.11.6
>>>>> -    2.17.x       21.11.2
>>>>> -    3.0.x        21.11.2
>>>>> -    3.1.x        22.11.1
>>>>> -    3.2.x        22.11.1
>>>>> +    2.17.x       21.11.5
>>>>> +    3.0.x        21.11.5
>>>>> +    3.1.x        22.11.3
>>>>> +    3.2.x        22.11.3
>>>>>        ============ ========
>>>>>    
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/intro/install/dpdk.rst 
>>>>> b/Documentation/intro/install/dpdk.rst
>>>>> index 63a0ebb23..02eaf8b10 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/intro/install/dpdk.rst
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/intro/install/dpdk.rst
>>>>> @@ -43,5 +43,5 @@ In addition to the requirements described in 
>>>>> :doc:`general`, building Open
>>>>>    vSwitch with DPDK will require the following:
>>>>>    
>>>>> -- DPDK 22.11.1
>>>>> +- DPDK 22.11.3
>>>>>    
>>>>>    - A `DPDK supported NIC`_
>>>>> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Install DPDK
>>>>>    
>>>>>           $ cd /usr/src/
>>>>> -       $ wget https://fast.dpdk.org/rel/dpdk-22.11.1.tar.xz
>>>>> -       $ tar xf dpdk-22.11.1.tar.xz
>>>>> -       $ export DPDK_DIR=/usr/src/dpdk-stable-22.11.1
>>>>> +       $ wget https://fast.dpdk.org/rel/dpdk-22.11.3.tar.xz
>>>>> +       $ tar xf dpdk-22.11.3.tar.xz
>>>>> +       $ export DPDK_DIR=/usr/src/dpdk-stable-22.11.3
>>>>>           $ cd $DPDK_DIR
>>>>>    
>>>>> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
>>>>> index eb7a9b1ba..6e1f175c5 100644
>>>>> --- a/NEWS
>>>>> +++ b/NEWS
>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>>>>>    v3.2.2 - xx xxx xxxx
>>>>>    --------------------
>>>>> +   - DPDK:
>>>>> +     * OVS validated with DPDK 22.11.3
>>>>
>>>> Ditto.
>>>>
>>>> And this patch will need to be forward-ported to the master
>>>> branch as well, dropping the NEWS part and the 'OVS 3.2' from
>>>> the subject line.  A separate patch would work too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there's value to move the master branch to 22.11.3 now
>>> that DPDK 23.11 is released and it is the focus for updating the master
>>> branch. I had been anticipating it, which is why i didn't include a patch.
>>>
>>> If there is some issue or delay with integrating DPDK 23.11, then we
>>> could update it to 22.11.3.
>>
>> We still need to update the documentation that lists versions
>> for older OVS releases.  And that is not really part of the
>> bringing the new major version of DPDK in.  That's why I thought
>> it's just easier to port this patch.
>>
> 
> ah ok, good point, I forgot about the faq.
> 
> I would prefer to just update the faq for older release and move 
> directly to 23.11, as it would save time doing some testing for an 
> update that could be replaced in a week etc. but if there's going to be 
> a longer delay, then it might be worth doing.

I'm not sure what is the current status of 23.11, but if we can get
it shortly, then fine.

It's just a bit weird to have branches not in sync for an extended
period of time.

> 
> I'll discuss with David regarding 23.11 timeline and send a patch for 
> master branch based on this.

OK.

> 
>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to