OpenBSC September 2017

openbsc@lists.osmocom.org

26 participants
56 discussions

release process review
by Neels Hofmeyr 03 Sep '17

03 Sep '17

I'm reading through https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki/Make_a_new_release and noting things as I go... > library vs. non-library projects This is not a thing and should disappear from the release process. We have many projects that build programs as well as install libraries. I see this is about the *_LIBVERSION, right? ... maybe we can say something like "adjust *_LIBVERSION (not required if the project does not install any libraries)" ? > "adhere to RERO better" RERO -- had to look it up, Eric's quote of "Release early, release often" :) And lol, the PDF link there refers to papers written basically by the "private club" of my former colleagues at the Subversion project :) Eric, Justin, Hyrum, all Subversion folks. Interesting side fact is that Subversion has never had time-based releases, despite one hackathon vote accepting that as policy. One detail though is that technically we do radical Release Early, because all of our code is on public git immediately. I'm not sure that Eric's quote refers to actual glorified "stable" releases, I understood as "make available early". Anyhow, this paragraph seems unrelated to the tagging process, could be related to the time-based package feed releases (see below). > "Proposed policy:" We already have what I'd call a loose bunch of accepted policies after OsmoDevCon 2017 and mails following it. It is first of all important to note a profound difference between two things we're aming for: providing a package feed with a global glorified state (time based), and the individual version tags in each git (feature based). With this in mind, recall the thread starting with: https://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/2017-April/010569.html Let me summarize: - "Global" package feeds We are planning to provide package feeds in a time-based fashion, by pinning code states and providing built packages. This is mostly a service to our user base, so that they can easily communicate and update to versions. They are to be called osmocom-cell-net / OsmocomCellNet and will have year+month based version numbers, YY.MM like 17.03 17.06 17.09 17.12 and, quote: > > I suggest that we follow a regular release schedule of: at the beginning > > of March, June, September and December. (so that we don't need to roll a > > release during/right after the festive season, i.e. not on 1st January) At this point we might aim at an OsmocomCellNet-17.12 package feed to be out on 1st of December. These feeds will not wait for features or code-freeze ahead. We will simply pin a certain point in time. If serious bugs arise we might choose to adjust, but the advice is to then just use the previous / wait three months for the next. - Individual git tree version numbers In contrast to the global package feeds, each git tree has its own local version with a git version tag. This does not follow the year+month scheme but rather "1.2.3" major.minor.patch. Compatibility is reflected in these version numbers, i.e. big incompatibilities require a major version bump, mere internal fixes can bump the patch version. (So far I understood the wiki page "Make a new release" referring to only these individual git repository versions, but we must clarify the two different concepts on that page and at least refer to a package feed wiki page.) How do the global package feeds correspond to individual major-minor-patch versions? For each of the global feeds, we should make sure that the precise git trees that are packaged correspond 1:1 to local git version tags. I.e. before we roll out a package feed, we make local version number tags to glorify the current master branch in each repository (bumping versions according to compatibility considerations) and actually use those precise version tags to mark the state that will go out in the OsmocomCellNet-YY.MM feed. So, while the time-based package feeds will be one driving force behind bumping individual version numbers, we are technically still able to mark new local version tags here and there independently from the time-based feeds. To avoid confusion, rather than talking of "release" it could help to talk of "package feed" versus "git version tag". > master branch is expected to depend on latest master branches of depended-upon projects The master branch HEADs are in constant flux, the requirement that each master works with the other latest masters is more of a daily development requirement enforced by our gerrit +V builds. For feeds and tags, we should not even mention "master branch" anywhere. Rather, the entire process *must* refer to specific version tags *everywhere*. But I'm not entirely sure how to put it. It is possible that we already have libosmo-foo 1.2.3 out, but osmo-bar also still builds fine with libosmo-foo 1.2.1. I guess all we need is that configure.ac version requirements are accurate. We will not always have to depend on the latest version number that's out, and if older ones work, ./configure should *not* require the most recent version. How to verify? I guess a version tag of osmo-X must verify - that building with the precise minimal versions requested in configure.ac works AND - that building with the currently latest tagged version of each depended-upon project also works AND - that building with each intermittent version of each dependency also works??? That's turning out rather complex ... maybe verifying with only the oldest required and the latest tagged versions is enough? > make release of depended-upon projects if necessary before making non-library project release So, are you saying, if foo needs bar which needs baz, releasing foo requires also releasing bar, in turn needing a release of baz first? ... "if necessary" :) To spell it out: this is not necessarily required; only when foo is using new API of bar that is not available in a tagged version of bar yet are we forced to make a version tag of bar and depend on it. BTW, this is implicit by "it must build with the version requested by configure.ac". The text on that wiki page before your edits did say exactly that: >> As soon as a feature is added to one Osmocom project that is needed for >> another dependent project to compile, we should tag at least a minor-revision >> bump in the depended-upon project and require it in the depend[ent] project's >> configure.ac. IMHO that's still exactly what it should say there. For the global package feed we choose to tag a new version everywhere so that we can pinpoint the current state that we want to glorify, but it is not strictly required for a local version bump to also tag depended-upon gits. > make sure that we have correct version dependencies before making non-library project release IOW: make sure configure.ac reflects the version number of depended-upon gits that are the minimum requirement to build. (scratch the "non-library") Ok great, I've reviewed the first paragraph :) Well, there was a lot of ground to cover, I hope I can do the rest less verbosely... > modify *_LIBVERSION in Makefile.am as necessary according to TODO-RELEASE file would be good to clarify what you mean, e.g. by an example. BTW, I find RANAP_LIBVERSION in osmo-iuh, ABIS_LIBVERSION and TRAU_LIBVERSION in libosmo-abis and LEGACY_MGCP_LIBVERSION in osmo-mgw; that's all. Do we need a lot more *_LIBVERSION everywhere, starting with libosmocore? Also it would be good to embed this in the list of steps under "common steps" ... i.e. have just one list of steps standing out clearly; Ideally I can start reading at the top and follow the steps one by one. > The release helper is trying to be smart about it and prevent making new > library release with non-empty TODO-RELEASE file if *_LIBVERSION is not > adjusted beforehand. Not sure I understand. I can either empty out TODO-RELEASE or change *_LIBVERSION? If I modify *_LIBVERSION, I can make a release despite TODO-RELEASE being nonempty? > Use following guidelines when choosing release type: I'd guess at major: Previous API is no longer available, ABI has changed incompatibly. minor: Additions to public API/ABI are present. patch: API/ABI unchanged, internal changes only (like bugfixes). > Deprecation policy I think we should never remove deprecated functions unless it would cause us inhumane pain to still include them. Dropping them would require a major version bump. > TODO-RELEASE file format and maintenance would be excellent to provide an actual example there > How to (re)tag a new release Is tagging and re-tagging the same? Do I need to delete a tag first? A word to clarify that would be good. Also, above it says re-sign, is that the same thing? Still unclear to me is, do I first tag a version, then do 'make release', and then I need to re-tag / re-sign again? A clear sequential list of steps and/or a complete screen dump example would be very helpful to grok it. [I remember OpenBSD CD sets having a complete listing of the default installation in the CD booklet :) ] Finally, I tried to call 'make release' but face these problems: ▶ make release /bin/bash: bumpversion: command not found ▶ apt-cache search bumpversion (no results) Though I find 'bumpversion' on packages.debian.org, I am unable to install it with 'apt-get'. https://packages.debian.org/buster/bumpversion It says "Packages / buster (testing) / devel / bumpversion" ...do I need to add "devel" to my apt sources somehow? Do we really need bumpversion? Can I instead bump the version manually? Also: ▶ make release /bin/bash: bumpversion: command not found osmo-release.mk:13: *** Please fix versioning to match http://semver.org/ spec (current is 1.0.1.115-f7251) before proceeding.. Stop. The intended version should be 1.0.2. Is that because bumpversion is not available? (Shouldn't it abort right away when bumpversion is missing?) I tried to also tag a version first so that git-version-gen produces a clean semver version: ▶ cat .version 1.0.2 but still get ▶ make release /bin/bash: bumpversion: command not found osmo-release.mk:13: *** Please fix versioning to match http://semver.org/ spec (current is 1.0.2) before proceeding.. Stop. (i.e. now it complains about "1.0.2" not being semver, which is inaccurate) Can you document these pitfalls on the wiki as well, please? ~N (P.S.: "first .. then" and "if .. then" ... it's almost always "then" with "e".)

2 1

[PATCH 1/2] pq_alsa.c: handle output buffer underrun
by Vadim Yanitskiy 02 Sep '17

02 Sep '17

2 2

[PATCH 1/2] pq_alsa.c: handle output buffer underrun
by Vadim Yanitskiy 02 Sep '17

02 Sep '17

On some systems the ALSA output buffer is pretty big, and if the audio samples are not being passed into the buffer quickly enough, it becomes starved for data, resulting in an error called underrun. Previously, when it happenned, GAPK used to stop processing with the following message (where X is a random number): [+] PQ: Adding ALSA output (dev='default', blk_len=320) [!] pq_execute(): abort, item returned -1 [+] Processed X frames According to the ALSA documentation, the pcm_handle changes its state when the problem happens, and should be recovered using the snd_pcm_prepare() call. This change actually does that. --- src/pq_alsa.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/pq_alsa.c b/src/pq_alsa.c index 9cee426..a3435dd 100644 --- a/src/pq_alsa.c +++ b/src/pq_alsa.c @@ -57,7 +57,15 @@ pq_cb_alsa_output(void *_state, uint8_t *out, const uint8_t *in, unsigned int in struct pq_state_alsa *state = _state; unsigned int num_samples = in_len/2; int rv; + rv = snd_pcm_writei(state->pcm_handle, in, num_samples); + if (rv == -EPIPE) { + /* Recover from buffer underrun */ + snd_pcm_prepare(state->pcm_handle); + /* Send a new sample again */ + rv = snd_pcm_writei(state->pcm_handle, in, num_samples); + } + return rv == num_samples ? 0 : -1; } -- 2.14.1 >From 8f1b0a9bf966cd561b10d2d33c6a47dd02e17dcf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vadim Yanitskiy <axilirator(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 18:02:45 +0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] pq_alsa.c: print error message if device init fails To: openbsc(a)lists.osmocom.org Cc: 246tnt(a)gmail.com, laforge(a)gnumonks.org, axilirator(a)gmail.com --- src/pq_alsa.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/pq_alsa.c b/src/pq_alsa.c index a3435dd..cad76ca 100644 --- a/src/pq_alsa.c +++ b/src/pq_alsa.c @@ -85,13 +85,16 @@ pq_queue_alsa_op(struct pq *pq, const char *alsa_dev, unsigned int blk_len, int int rc = -1; state = calloc(1, sizeof(struct pq_state_alsa)); - if (!state) - return -ENOMEM; + if (!state) { + rc = -ENOMEM; + goto out_print; + } rc = snd_pcm_open(&state->pcm_handle, alsa_dev, in_out_n ? SND_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE : SND_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK, 0); if (rc < 0) - return rc; + goto out_print; + state->blk_len = blk_len; rc = snd_pcm_hw_params_malloc(&hw_params); @@ -143,6 +146,9 @@ out_free_par: out_close: snd_pcm_close(state->pcm_handle); free(state); +out_print: + fprintf(stderr, "[!] Couldn't init ALSA device '%s': %s\n", + alsa_dev, snd_strerror(rc)); return rc; } -- 2.14.1

1 0

minor annoyance - file blank on git.osmocom.org
by Keith Whyte 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Does everyone else also see this as an empty file? http://git.osmocom.org/libosmocore/tree/src/codec/gsm690.c The plain text version looks fine. k/

3 2

about merging deletion of checking-value-strings script from libosmocore
by Neels Hofmeyr 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

I would have welcomed more patience in merging https://gerrit.osmocom.org/3685, "Use value string check from osmo-ci" in libosmocore. (the commit log of which fails to indicate removal of the script, btw) Moving to the new repositories, I have enough loose ends flapping in the wind, and dropping the script from libosmocore has added yet another distraction, while not being necessary to start using the one from osmo-ci. Max clearly posted "N. B: this should be merged last, after all the repos converted to check script from osmo-ci." -- which is not the case for the new repositores split from openbsc.git. In osmo-msc I have >50 patches waiting to be merged. The timing could hardly have been worse, luckily only a few gerrit builds are affected. Will try to sort out merging of the patches without needing a rebase and >50 rebuilds. Thanks for you attention :) ~N

2 2

RFC: use git-version-gen from gnulib
by Max 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi. I'd like to propose to switch from local (unmaintained?) copy of git-version-gen script and use it directly from upstream gnulib package. It's available pretty-much everywhere (including ancient Debian which we support for nightly). It's also available in meta-oe: https://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/recipe/47365/ It doesn't feel right to use copy-pasted code when we could offload the maintenance work to packaging/dependency tools. What do you think? Please contribute to https://osmocom.org/issues/2467 which I've created to track this RFC. -- Max Suraev <msuraev(a)sysmocom.de> http://www.sysmocom.de/ ======================================================================= * sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH * Alt-Moabit 93 * 10559 Berlin, Germany * Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B * Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Director: Harald Welte

2 2

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

OpenBSC September 2017