DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mempool: reduce rte_mempool structure size
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:54:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <435EDA6B-B553-4A93-AD8D-C7B86C8907A3@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10558998.3znIRhOpQL@xps13>

>2016-02-12 15:07, Wiles, Keith:
>> >On 02/12/2016 03:57 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> >> 2016-02-12 13:23, Panu Matilainen:
>> >>> On 02/10/2016 11:18 PM, Keith Wiles wrote:
>> >>>>    static inline void *rte_mempool_get_priv(struct rte_mempool *mp)
>> >>>>    {
>> >>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>> >>>> +	return (char *)mp +
>> >>>> +		MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num, mp->cache_size);
>> >>>> +#else
>> >>>>    	return (char *)mp + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num);
>> >>>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
>> >>>>    }
>> >>>
>> >>> This is not RTE_NEXT_ABI material IMO, the added ifdef clutter is just
>> >>> too much.
>> >>
>> >> The changes are restricted to the mempool files.
>> >> I think it is not so much. However I wonder how much the feature is important
>> >> to justify the use of NEXT_ABI.
>> >
>> >Well yes, to be precise: for the benefit of this patch, the ifdef 
>> >clutter seems too much.
>> >
>> >Its not as if every change is expected to go through a NEXT_ABI phase, 
>> >based on http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032866.html there 
>> >might be some confusion regarding that.
>> 
>> I think the NEXT_ABI is reasonable in this case as it does change a structure everyone uses and the ifdef clutter is caused by having to remove old ifdefs, which is a good thing for DPDK. The NEXT_ABI ifdefs only exist for one release and then they will disappear, which I think is more then reasonable.
>
>OK, I'm going to sum it up with new words and let the conclusion comes
>from Keith, Panu and Olivier.
>
>We agreed to allow ABI breaking if a notification was done in the
>previous release.
>Keith has sent a notification for 16.04 so the "official" ABI will be
>changed in 16.07.
>It is also encouraged to show how the ABI will be broken when sending
>a notification. It allows to give an informed opinion before ack'ing.
>The code snippet will also be useful to app developpers when preparing
>a future upgrade.
>Keith has sent the whole code change.
>This code change may be submitted in the current release without waiting
>the deprecation time if gated in the NEXT_ABI ifdefs.
>It allows to provide the feature to app developpers who don't care about
>versioning. But the price is a more complicated code to read and manage.
>
>To make it short, the rules to use NEXT_ABI are not strict and may change.
>So now you have to decide if this change can be integrated in 16.04
>as NEXT_ABI.

I would personally go ahead with the NEXT_ABI in 16.04 as it seems more reasonable for developers. I do not know if we made this patch in 16.04 without NEXT_ABI what would break in a developers project, which to me means we need to error on the side of caution by using NEXT_ABI.

I am willing to submit a v4 patch without the NEXT_API ifdefs, but that is something everyone needs to agree on.
>
>


Regards,
Keith





  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-02-12 15:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-02 23:02 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: Reduce " Keith Wiles
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-02-08 11:02 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-08 15:57   ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-09 17:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool: reduce " Keith Wiles
2016-02-10 16:59   ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-10 17:22     ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-10 18:35     ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-10 20:06       ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-10 21:18   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Keith Wiles
2016-02-12 11:23     ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 13:57       ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 14:19         ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 15:07           ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-12 15:38             ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 15:50               ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-12 15:58                 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-15  9:58                 ` Hunt, David
2016-02-15 10:15                   ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-15 10:21                     ` Hunt, David
2016-02-15 12:31                       ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-12 15:54               ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2016-02-12 18:36   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Keith Wiles
2016-02-15  9:20     ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-14  9:42     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Olivier Matz
2016-04-14 13:28       ` Wiles, Keith
2016-04-14 13:43         ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-14 13:53       ` Wiles, Keith
2016-05-17  5:31       ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=435EDA6B-B553-4A93-AD8D-C7B86C8907A3@intel.com \
    --to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).