Skip to content

Conversation

vadorovsky
Copy link
Member

@vadorovsky vadorovsky commented Mar 4, 2020

Not backported as they're handled by #10638:

Once this PR is merged, you can update the PR labels via:

$ for pr in 10388 10262; do contrib/backporting/set-labels.py $pr done 1.6; done

This change is Reviewable

@vadorovsky vadorovsky requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2020 13:19
@maintainer-s-little-helper maintainer-s-little-helper bot added backport/1.6 kind/backports This PR provides functionality previously merged into master. labels Mar 4, 2020
@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

never-tell-me-the-odds

1 similar comment
@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

never-tell-me-the-odds

@vadorovsky vadorovsky force-pushed the pr/v1.6-backport-2020-03-04 branch from 639db86 to 2e5fbc7 Compare March 4, 2020 15:20
@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

vadorovsky commented Mar 4, 2020

@joestringer joestringer requested a review from jrfastab March 4, 2020 16:25
@aanm
Copy link
Member

aanm commented Mar 5, 2020

test-me-please

@vadorovsky vadorovsky force-pushed the pr/v1.6-backport-2020-03-04 branch from 2e5fbc7 to 7ea4e4c Compare March 5, 2020 11:01
@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

test-me-please

@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

vadorovsky commented Mar 6, 2020

@vadorovsky
Copy link
Member Author

never-tell-me-the-odds

@joestringer
Copy link
Member

joestringer commented Mar 6, 2020

The test K8sDatapathConfig Transparent encryption DirectRouting Check connectivity with transparent encryption and direct routing seems to be reliably failing on k8s-1.10 / net-next kernel:
https://jenkins.cilium.io/job/Cilium-PR-Ginkgo-Tests-Validated/17774/

Given that this is related to a PR that's being backported as part of this PR, I think it's likely to be related and we should dig into this further before merging this PR.

@joestringer
Copy link
Member

I presume that @mrostecki @jrfastab will co-ordinate on moving forward on this PR (whether by dropping the backport or figuring out how to address it on v1.6).

brb and others added 3 commits March 19, 2020 10:21
[ upstream commit 2206041 ]

The same instance of the configuration map is shared among the tests.
So, any modification to the map might unintentionally influence
non-related test case.

Signed-off-by: Martynas Pumputis <m@lambda.lt>
Signed-off-by: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org>
[ upstream commit 06407e4 ]

Signed-off-by: Maciej Kwiek <maciej@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org>
[ upstream commit fc15d0c ]

Signed-off-by: Maciej Kwiek <maciej@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org>
@joestringer joestringer force-pushed the pr/v1.6-backport-2020-03-04 branch from 7ea4e4c to 9e071e0 Compare March 19, 2020 17:22
@joestringer
Copy link
Member

I just dropped the encryption backport commits in light of #10638 .

@joestringer
Copy link
Member

joestringer commented Mar 19, 2020

never-tell-me-the-odds

EDIT: Provisioning failure

@joestringer
Copy link
Member

test-me-please

@joestringer joestringer added the ready-to-merge This PR has passed all tests and received consensus from code owners to merge. label Mar 19, 2020
@aanm aanm merged commit a3e9f79 into v1.6 Mar 20, 2020
@aanm aanm deleted the pr/v1.6-backport-2020-03-04 branch March 20, 2020 12:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/backports This PR provides functionality previously merged into master. ready-to-merge This PR has passed all tests and received consensus from code owners to merge.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants