Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] common/mlx5: remove devx depndency on ibv and dv

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/9/2020 8:24 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:12 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/1/2020 10:59 AM, Raslan Darawsheh wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 1:32 AM
>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Olga Shern
>>>> <olgas@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ophir
>>>> Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>; Asaf Penso <asafp@mellanox.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v1] common/mlx5: remove devx depndency on ibv and dv
>>>>
>>>> File mlx5_devx_cmds.c should contain pure DevX calls. It must be OS
>>>> agnostic and not include any references to ibv or dv structs (defined in
>>>> ibverbs and rdma-core linux libraries).  This commit replaces all ibv and
>>>> dv references with 'void *'.  Specifically, the following struct were
>>>> replaced:
>>>> 1. struct ibv_context *
>>>> 2. struct ibv_qp *
>>>> 3. struct mlx5dv_devx_cmd_comp *
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
>>>
>>> Patch applied to next-net-mlx,
>>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> This patch is failing in the travis for ABI checks [1], since mlx has APIs now
>> [2], are they public APIs or internal ones, and are they part of the ABI policy,
>> can you please check this?
> 
> - What I see on patchwork and test-report ml for this patch:
> http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/67367/
> 
> Ophir proposed a patch on 03/30.
> 
> The robot reported an issue on 03/30, and I suppose Ophir got a report.
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-March/122623.html
> https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/308057800#L2337
> 
> Matan acked the patch on 03/31.
> 
> Rasland merged the patch on 04/01.
> 
> I understand that the abi checks are not perfect, and people need help
> with the new abi checks.
> Prove me wrong, but here, I get the feeling that it was just ignored
> by 3 people in a row.
> 
> 
> - On the question if these should be public API or internal, that is
> not for me to reply/investigate.
> This is a question for Mellanox.
> 
> 

Hi Matan, Raslan, Ophir,

First can you please clarify if these APIs are internal or public?

And later if the ABI break issue is not clarified I may need to drop these
patches. Right now they fail in travis!