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 192DE160 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 18:16:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-423c-215-ff-fecc-4872.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:423c:215:ff:fecc:4872] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1eVKje-0000ow-J9; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 12:16:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 12:15:17 -0500 From: Neil Horman To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, john.mcnamara@intel.com Message-ID: <20171230171517.GA4393@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> References: <20171201185628.16261-1-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20171211193619.21643-1-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20171212140751.GA7280@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171212140751.GA7280@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv3 0/4] dpdk: enhance EXPERIMENTAL api tagging X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 17:16:07 -0000 On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 02:07:52PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:36:15PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > Hey all- > > A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches I > > would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe > > because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M. asked me then what > > I might do to improve the situation, and the following patch set is a proposal > > that I've come up with. > > > > In thinking about the problem I identified two issues that I think we > > can improve on in this area: > > > > 1) Make experimental api calls more visible in the source code. That is to say, > > when reviewing patches, it would be nice to have some sort of visual reference > > that indicates that the changes being made are part of an experimental API and > > therefore ABI concerns need not be addressed > > > > 2) Make experimenal api usage more visible to consumers of the DPDK, so that > > they can make a more informed decision about the API's they consume in their > > application. We make an effort to document all the experimental API's, but > > there is no guarantee that a user will check the documentation before making use > > of a new library. > > > > This patch set attempts to achieve both of the above goals. To do this I've > > added an __experimental macro tag, suitable for inserting into api forward > > declarations and definitions. > > > > The presence of the tag in the header and c files where the api code resides > > increases the likelyhood that any patch submitted against them will include the > > tag in the context, making it clear to reviewers that ABI stability isn't a > > concern here. > > > > > > Also, This tag marks each function it is used on with an attibute causing any > > use of the fuction to emit a warning during the build > > with a message indicating that the API call in question is not yet part of the > > stable interface. Developers can then make an informed decision to suppress > > that warning or not. > > > > Because there is internal use of several experimental API's, this set also > > includes a new override macro ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_APIS to automatically > > suprress these warnings. I think its fair to assume that, for internal use, we > > almost always want to suppress these warnings, as by definition any change to > > the apis (even their removal) must be done in parallel with an appropriate > > change in the calling locations, lest the dpdk build itself break. > > > > Neil > > > > --- > > Change Notes: > > v2) > > * Cleaned up checkpatch errors > > * Added Allowance for building experimental on BSD > > * Swapped Patch 3 and 4 so that we didn't have a commit level that issued > > warnings/errors without need > > > > v3) > > * On suggestion from Bruce, modify ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_APIS to be defined in > > CFLAGS rather than a makefile variable. This is more flexible in that it > > allows us to suppress this specific feature rather than all uses of the > > deprecated attribute, as we might use it for other features in the furute > > > > Despite the fact that this is making yet more work for porting to a new > build system, I think this is a good idea to have. As such, > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson > > Thomas- I just noticed that the ci tests are failing on the intel compiler, which makes very little sense to me, as the error is a permission error on a bash script that added in this series, which works during the gcc compilation. Can you take a look at that please? thanks Neil