Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/mlx: version rdma-core glue libraries

[Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:23PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:14 PM
> > To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org; Shahaf Shuler
> > <shahafs@mellanox.com>; Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/mlx: version rdma-core glue
> > libraries
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 03:29:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 02/02/2018 17:46, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -33,7 +33,9 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk
> > > > >
> > > > >  # Library name.
> > > > >  LIB = librte_pmd_mlx4.a
> > > > > -LIB_GLUE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so
> > > > > +LIB_GLUE = $(LIB_GLUE_BASE).$(LIB_GLUE_VERSION)
> > > > > +LIB_GLUE_BASE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so
> > > > > +LIB_GLUE_VERSION = 18.02.1
> > > >
> > > > You should use the version number of the release, i.e. 18.02.0
> > > > Ideally, you should retrieve it from rte_version.h.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind this only needs to be updated when the glue API gets
> > modified,
> > > and this "18.02.1" string may remain unmodified for subsequent DPDK
> > > releases, probably as long as the PMD doesn't use any new rdma-core calls.
> > >
> > > We've already backported this patch to 17.02 and 17.11, both requiring
> > > different sets of Verbs calls and thus a different version, hence the
> > added
> > > "18.02" as a starting point. The last digit may have to be modified
> > possibly
> > > several times between official DPDK releases while work is being done on
> > the
> > > PMD (i.e. per commit).
> > >
> > > In short it's not meant to follow DPDK's public versioning scheme. If you
> > > really think it should, doing so will make things more complex in the
> > > Makefile, which will have to parse rte_version.h. What's your opinion?
> > 
> > What about appending date +%s output to it? It would be stricter and
> > automated.
> 
> Adding current timestamp or date into a build breaks reproducibility of builds, so is
> generally not recommended.

Good point.

> 
> No opinion on string/version naming here.
>