From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1582293B for ; Wed, 25 May 2016 21:58:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1b5ewD-0000kG-Ot; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:57:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:57:48 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Stephen Hemminger , Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <20160525195748.GH14322@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1463431287-4551-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1710741.QL28xgSMua@xps13> <20160525191345.GF14322@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1507554.Pcj3Og5Zqt@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1507554.Pcj3Og5Zqt@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv4 1/5] pmdinfogen: Add buildtools and pmdinfogen utility X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0000 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 09:39:43PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-05-25 15:13, Neil Horman: > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 07:39:30PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-05-25 13:22, Neil Horman: > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:21:19PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2016-05-24 15:41, Neil Horman: > > > > > > +include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.buildtools.mk > > > > > > > > > > Why a new Makefile? Can you use rte.hostapp.mk? > > > > > > > > > I don't know, maybe. Nothing else currently uses rte.hostapp.mk, so I missed > > > > its existance. I make the argument that, that being the case, we should stick > > > > with the Makefile I just tested with, and remove the rte.hostapp.mk file > > > > > > No, rte.hostapp.mk has been used and tested in the history of the project. > > > Please try it. > > > > > It works, but its really ugly (as it means that the buildtools directory gets > > install to the hostapp directory under the build). I could move that of course, > > but at this point, you are asking me to remove a working makefile to replace it > > with another makefile that, by all rights should have been removed as part of > > commit efa2084a840fb83fd9be83adca57e5f23d3fa9fe: > > Author: Thomas Monjalon > > Date: Tue Mar 10 17:55:25 2015 +0100 > > > > scripts: remove useless build tools > > > > test-framework.sh is an old script to check building of some dependencies. > > testhost is an old app used to check HOSTCC. > > > > Let's clean the scripts directory. > > > > Here you removed the only user of rte.hostapp.mk, but neglected to remove > > hostapp.mk itself. > > Yes. I didn't really neglect to remove it. I thought it would be used later. > Ok, thats fair. > > I really fail to see why making me rework my current > > makefile setup, that matches the purpose of the tool is a superior solution to > > just getting rid of the unused makefile thats there right now. > > I'm just trying to avoid creating a new makefile for each tool. > Is it possible to fix the directory in rte.hostapp.mk? > Every apps use the same makefile rte.app.mk. I think it should be the same > for host apps. > Yes, I could do that, I could fix up the directory path in rte.hostapp.mk so that it installs to buildtools rather than hostapp, and that would be fine. But then if I were to additionally issue this command: git mv mk/rte.hostapp.mk mk/rte.buildtools.mk We would have exactly what I'm proposing anyway. I don't disagree that rte.buildtools.mk and rte.hostapp.mk are simmilar, they are in fact almost identical, and I simply missed the latter because I didn't see any uses of it. What I am saying is that, due to their simmilarity, Its pretty much an equivalent situation to use either makefile, and its less work for me to remove hostapp.mk and just use what I have. > > > > > > +++ b/buildtools/pmdinfogen/pmdinfogen.c > > > > > [...] > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * If this returns NULL, then this is a PMD_VDEV, because > > > > > > + * it has no pci table reference > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > We can imagine physical PMD not using PCI. > > > > > I think this comment should be removed. > > > > We can, but currently its a true statement. we have two types of PMDs, a PDEV > > > > and a VDEV, the former is a pci device, and the latter is a virtual device, so > > > > you can imply the PDEV type from the presence of pci entries, and VDEV from the > > > > alternative. If we were to do something, I would recommend adding a macro to > > > > explicitly ennumerate each pmds type. I would prefer to wait until that was a > > > > need however, as it can be done invisibly to the user. > > > > > > We are removing the PMD types in the EAL rework. > > > So this comment will be outdated. Better to remove now. > > > > > Then, I'm just not going to enumerate the type of driver at all, I'll remove > > that attribute entirely. > > OK > > > But I really don't like to write code for things that are 'predictive'. > > Not really predictive as it is an older patch. And how many older patches never get integrated? Or languish for long periods of time? We've debated this before. Its really not reasonable to expect developers (myself or others) to go through the mailing list and create an ordinal list of patches to apply before doing our development work. If that were the case, then they should just be applied immediately so the HEAD of the git tree is an accurate representation of the development state of the tree. But thats not the case, and patches don't always get applied in the order that they are posted. So, if Davids Patch series goes in ahead of mine, I'll gladly rebase, but I don't want to create some artificial ordinality just because we touch the same code, especially if his patch series has to go back for further revision. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > + fprintf(ofd,"\\\"type\\\" : \\\"%s\\\", ", drv->pci_tbl ? "PMD_PDEV" : "PMD_VDEV"); > > > > > > > > > > Please forget the naming PDEV/VDEV. > > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean here, you would rather they be named PCI and Virtual, > > > > or something else? > > > > > > Yes please. > > > > > No, If you're removing the types, and you're sure of that, I'm just going to > > remove the description entirely. If you're unsure about exactly whats going to > > happen, we should reflect the state of the build now, and make the appropriate > > change when it lands. > > OK to remove the type description. > Ok, I'll do that. > > > > > > +++ b/buildtools/pmdinfogen/pmdinfogen.h > > > > > [...] > > > > > > +#define Elf_Ehdr Elf64_Ehdr > > > > > > +#define Elf_Shdr Elf64_Shdr > > > > > > +#define Elf_Sym Elf64_Sym > > > > > > +#define Elf_Addr Elf64_Addr > > > > > > +#define Elf_Sword Elf64_Sxword > > > > > > +#define Elf_Section Elf64_Half > > > > > > +#define ELF_ST_BIND ELF64_ST_BIND > > > > > > +#define ELF_ST_TYPE ELF64_ST_TYPE > > > > > > + > > > > > > +#define Elf_Rel Elf64_Rel > > > > > > +#define Elf_Rela Elf64_Rela > > > > > > +#define ELF_R_SYM ELF64_R_SYM > > > > > > +#define ELF_R_TYPE ELF64_R_TYPE > > > > > > > > > > Why these defines are needed? > > > > > > > > > Because I borrowed the code from modpost.c, which allows for both ELF32 and > > > > ELF64 compilation. I wanted to keep it in place should DPDK ever target > > > > different sized architectures. > > > > > > Maybe a comment is needed. > > > Is ELF32 used on 32-bit archs like i686 or ARMv7? > > It depends on exactly how its built, but that would be a common use, yes. > > We have such 32-bit archs in DPDK. Is pmdinfogen working for them? > It was a few revisions ago, but I've changed so much now, I should probably check again. > > > > > > +struct rte_pci_id { > > > > > > + uint16_t vendor_id; /**< Vendor ID or PCI_ANY_ID. */ > > > > > > + uint16_t device_id; /**< Device ID or PCI_ANY_ID. */ > > > > > > + uint16_t subsystem_vendor_id; /**< Subsystem vendor ID or PCI_ANY_ID. */ > > > > > > + uint16_t subsystem_device_id; /**< Subsystem device ID or PCI_ANY_ID. */ > > > > > > +}; > > > > > [...] > > > > > > +struct pmd_driver { > > > > > > + Elf_Sym *name_sym; > > > > > > + const char *name; > > > > > > + struct rte_pci_id *pci_tbl; > > > > > > + struct pmd_driver *next; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + const char* opt_vals[PMD_OPT_MAX]; > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > > > Are you duplicating some structures from EAL? > > > > > It will be out of sync easily. > > > > > > > > > Only the rte_pci_id, which hasn't changed since the initial public release of > > > > the DPDK. We can clean this up later if you like, but I'm really not too > > > > worried about it. > > > > > > I would prefer an include if possible. > > > rte_pci_id is changing in 16.07 ;) > > > > > So, we've had this discussion before :). Its really not fair to ask anyone to > > write code based on predictive changes. If theres some patch out there thats > > planning on making a change, we can't be expected to write with it in mind. If > > you want people to use it, then get it merged. I understand thats not really > > the issue here, and I'm making the change because you're right, we should avoid > > duplicating the structures if we can, but please understand that its impossible > > to write for change thats predicted to come at a later date. > > I understand your point. > The rte_pci_id change has been reviewed several times already and should be > applied very soon. > Ok, As I said in my prior note, I'm making this change, because its sane to do in and of itself, but again, if its not in HEAD, it really doesn't exist yet from a development standpoint. > > > > > > +++ b/mk/rte.buildtools.mk > > > > > > > > > > This file must be removed I think. > > > > > We are going to be sick after digesting so much makefiles ;) > > > > > > > > > See above, given that I just tested this, and rte.hostapp.mk isn't used, I'd > > > > recommend deleting the latter, rather than deleting this one and moving to the > > > > old one. > > > > > > See above, I do not agree :) > > > > > Then we're not going to agree about this :). I'll re-iterate my stance. Moving to > > use rte.hotapp.mk, causes alot more work for me, makes the use of the tool > > somewhat uglier, and by all rights shouldn't be there at all, due to your > > previously mentioned commit. It just makes more sense to use the buildtools > > makefile and remove the vesitgial rte.hostapp.mk makefile. > >