From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD9DA00C5; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:16:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F17A410F6; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:16:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-108-mta147.mxroute.com (mail-108-mta147.mxroute.com [136.175.108.147]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCB140DDA for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:16:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([140.82.40.27] 140.82.40.27.vultr.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta147.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 17ef7bc2a670005a20.003 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:16:51 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: f942d8e1eba75bf46e47f47d853fc4cea4fe225eeb17 X-Originating-IP: [140.82.40.27] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ashroe.eu; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:In-reply-to:Subject:Cc:To: From:References:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=OfOq3s4FrOM5n0jKi2jNRHJFOAl4BrmswGCJ2DDYiPI=; b=ENcTyWyJ9uZs18dklrG+UkaRLs OANe/gJ/x1DH8YMnn9itNHtnFVXDs8WyxQxikdNnCNcFKo+z8xmZ2J7nCeov+FdXzBnIxWte5F+kH DdVwQNZwlyfzfjBJXWWVTPQUFpGi6VSgl+1hsm+Fmv8lLE1AEJFiE0wMAJRJfHqe6KhFD4iIYK4m7 1hRAp+8hb0ZA1C6t+yzq5lWkYahUUk0go+aj7SWa+F7Ceqawx+2xIlutBgmkUjrsMa1UvP0sBsoYf j+1J2VdJGz1H3qKKnWOyI/ZZwHKbpVaYj/3dAkGpxtWchO80slEQyTS+eAzh5yRlDor686mGcjacQ QBwZM1gg==; References: <20201009034832.10302-1-kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com> <87iltx1oir.fsf@mdr78.vserver.site> <14555427.JCcGWNJJiE@thomas> <87sfspiuj1.fsf@mdr78.vserver.site> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.1 From: Ray Kinsella To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Kalesh A P , dev@dpdk.org, ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, asafp@nvidia.com, David Marchand , Andrew Rybchenko Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/4] ethdev: support device reset and recovery events In-reply-to: <87sfspiuj1.fsf@mdr78.vserver.site> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 05:16:48 -0500 Message-ID: <878rudiwhb.fsf@mdr78.vserver.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Ray Kinsella writes: > Thomas Monjalon writes: > >> 02/02/2022 12:44, Ray Kinsella: >>> Ferruh Yigit writes: >>> > On 1/28/2022 12:48 PM, Kalesh A P wrote: >>> >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >>> >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >>> >> @@ -3818,6 +3818,24 @@ enum rte_eth_event_type { >>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_DESTROY, /**< port is released */ >>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_IPSEC, /**< IPsec offload related event */ >>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_FLOW_AGED,/**< New aged-out flows is detected */ >>> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING, >>> >> + /**< port recovering from an error >>> >> + * >>> >> + * PMD detected a FW reset or error condition. >>> >> + * PMD will try to recover from the error. >>> >> + * Data path may be quiesced and Control path operations >>> >> + * may fail at this time. >>> >> + */ >>> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED, >>> >> + /**< port recovered from an error >>> >> + * >>> >> + * PMD has recovered from the error condition. >>> >> + * Control path and Data path are up now. >>> >> + * PMD re-configures the port to the state prior to the error. >>> >> + * Since the device has undergone a reset, flow rules >>> >> + * offloaded prior to reset may be lost and >>> >> + * the application should recreate the rules again. >>> >> + */ >>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX /**< max value of this enum */ >>> > >>> > >>> > Also ABI check complains about 'RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' value check, cc'ed more people >>> > to evaluate if it is a false positive: >>> > >>> > >>> > 1 function with some indirect sub-type change: >>> > [C] 'function int rte_eth_dev_callback_register(uint16_t, rte_eth_event_type, rte_eth_dev_cb_fn, void*)' at rte_ethdev.c:4637:1 has some indirect sub-type changes: >>> > parameter 3 of type 'typedef rte_eth_dev_cb_fn' has sub-type changes: >>> > underlying type 'int (typedef uint16_t, enum rte_eth_event_type, void*, void*)*' changed: >>> > in pointed to type 'function type int (typedef uint16_t, enum rte_eth_event_type, void*, void*)': >>> > parameter 2 of type 'enum rte_eth_event_type' has sub-type changes: >>> > type size hasn't changed >>> > 2 enumerator insertions: >>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING' value '11' >>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED' value '12' >>> > 1 enumerator change: >>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' from value '11' to '13' at rte_ethdev.h:3807:1 >>> >>> I don't immediately see the problem that this would cause. >>> There are no array sizes etc dependent on the value of MAX for instance. >>> >>> Looks safe? >> >> We never know how this enum will be used by the application. >> The max value may be used for the size of an event array. >> It looks a real ABI issue unfortunately. > > Right - but we only really care about it when an array size based on MAX > is likely to be passed to DPDK, which doesn't apply in this case. > > I noted that some Linux folks explicitly mark similar MAX values as not > part of the ABI. > > /usr/include/linux/perf_event.h > 37: PERF_TYPE_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 60: PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 79: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 87: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_OP_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 94: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_RESULT_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 116: PERF_COUNT_SW_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 149: PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 24, /* non-ABI */ > 151: __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY = 1ULL << 63, /* > non-ABI; internal use */ > 189: PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT /* non-ABI */ > 267: PERF_TXN_MAX = (1 << 8), /* non-ABI */ > 301: PERF_FORMAT_MAX = 1U << 4, /* non-ABI */ > 1067: PERF_RECORD_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > 1078: PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL_TYPE_MAX /* non-ABI */ > 1087: PERF_BPF_EVENT_MAX, /* non-ABI */ > >> >> PS: I am not Cc'ed in this patchset, >> so copying what I said on v6 (more than a year ago): >> Please use the option --cc-cmd devtools/get-maintainer.sh Any thoughts on similarly annotating all our _MAX enums in the same way? We could also add a section in the ABI Policy to make it explicit _MAX enum values are not part of the ABI - what do folks think? -- Regards, Ray K