From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB49A0A02; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:02:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D2D4067B; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:02:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from dal1relay209.mxroute.com (dal1relay209.mxroute.com [199.181.239.209]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E99440147 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:02:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from filter004.mxroute.com ([149.28.56.236] filter004.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by dal1relay209.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 178697ab026000362f.001 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:02:31 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 9a5637a0cc869cc97a2f40f280613d0f83ef8b2ca49b X-Originating-IP: [149.28.56.236] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ashroe.eu; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=kXSTYS7FvyH72l0E2fmZDWBfRmLyMqTYJAtOgS0ZyoM=; b=S9gxJq8HACvZQETu814KTsdSBC OF04vK3H5tpnWgENHBS7WBgmwAzpV8yvBDZNJLOAVVHw4inTEjYg3MwM/Q2Pbs6hB0+bB/Akh7KPr s85CZgH3hV6YJzUmTccpDU7h/HAoxeoHN7rQ8yOciRUSWHrsuSXFO1n0wW8nw6dSQ1KtGQKhRtk1F h98qqr4WsO1/wH4x27vAy8AhYFvnfVqcugfubfx41BhJtGp+hTGyse/18s/RzJsFPWCd01vnXn3jw VgbnluyXglb4ENRiree5E64OxUCDNI/6BaO1G9OQRpsC610VQV3dlFkKkA40mRiFnobbciW6J+2DM CoGIQ+wA==; To: Jerin Jacob Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Pavan Nikhilesh , Jerin Jacob , dpdk-dev , Harman Kalra , Nithin Dabilpuram , David Marchand References: <20210225170238.15581-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <11975004.s7UMkAiPBC@thomas> <5cb9bec3-6d4e-7867-e8d7-9c3d55ec78ef@ashroe.eu> <5442273.ffSK4IfYTI@thomas> <0564d636-3088-9b3e-1226-2767996d7f2a@ashroe.eu> From: "Kinsella, Ray" Message-ID: <0b0986ba-a3e3-916d-25fc-cb37730e8fdf@ashroe.eu> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:02:27 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] common/octeontx: enable build only on 64bit Linux X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 25/03/2021 12:58, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray wrote: >> >> >> >> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>> >>>> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray: >>>>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon: >>>>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers, >>>>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class >>>>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux >>>>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux >>>>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and applied. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually not applied yet. >>>>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken >>>>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build. >>>>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build. >>>>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore? >>>>>> >>>>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage. >>>>> >>>>> From the policy ... >>>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change." >>>> >>>> So the patches should wait 21.11. >>>> Everybody agree? >>> >>> Looks good to me to postpone. >>> >>> @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman >>> >>> Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is >>> this ABI breakge[1]? >>> >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/ >>> >>> [1] >>> From the policy ... >>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for >>> hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI >>> change." >> >> +1 > > Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it? > You'll note the original reply pointing at the ABI Policy was from myself. So I would be in favor of retention until 21.11. Thats said... We should think about making the rules less strict for 32bit in future, from 21.11 onwards perhaps. How many OS Vendors are shipping 32bit OSs these days for example?