From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C231A04F3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:17:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DCA1F1C; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:17:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B8E1C01 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:17:29 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2019 06:17:28 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,336,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="210823919" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.4.180]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Dec 2019 06:17:26 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:17:23 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: David Marchand Cc: Kevin Laatz , dev , Thomas Monjalon , "Kinsella, Ray" , Tomasz Duszynski , Zyta Szpak , Rastislav Cernay , Aaron Conole Message-ID: <20191220141723.GA526@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20191213140302.4252-1-kevin.laatz@intel.com> <20191213164110.9744-1-kevin.laatz@intel.com> <20191220110414.GA514@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/11] Add ABI compatibility checks to the meson build 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:19:13PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:04 PM Bruce Richardson > wrote: > > > For maintainers that integrate patches or developers that get a CI > > > failure and want to fix it, we would need to help them to: > > > * generate dumps on a reference version, so I would tend to write some > > > documentation since playing with the current sources would be too > > > dangerous from my pov, > > > > This should be a one-off reference dump archived somewhere. Each maintainer > > should not have his own copy, I think. > > This is not a one-off thing. > We maintain ABI for some time (1/2 year(s)), and we expect to bump ABI. > When doing this, in size, the diff will be at least the same than what > we have here. > I don't think it will be quite that big, but ok, it may be significant, so I will concede that these are too big to store in the main git repo. > > If you disable libraries, features etc... you get a new ABI. > What would be the reference*s* then? > Builds with default options from meson for each architecture? > On the project level API, yes, removing libraries/drivers does affect things. However, the specific checks are done on the individual .so level, so having some drivers off in the build should not be a problem. Even with features - all public functions need to correspond with map file entries, so we can't conditionally remove them without providing a stub AFAIK. Therefore, having one master reference of the DPDK_20 ABI is perfectly feasible. > > > > * run the checks, like adding the check in the > > > devtools/test-*-build.sh scripts that already exist, with a new > > > configuration item to point at the dumps per target, > > > > > > > Where do we store the dumps then? Do they get stored in a separate git > > repo? > > Creating a separate git repo is just adding more pain to submitters > (/maintainers): they would have to submit (/apply) patches against two > trees. > Well, the official ABI dumps need to be stored somewhere, because if it's an official ABI, then it is exactly that. There cannot be different people with different versions of the ABI to check against. Everyone should check against the one common, official reference. Regards, /Bruce