Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] common/octeontx: enable build only on 64bit Linux

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:32 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/03/2021 12:58, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> >>>>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>>>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> >>>>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> >>>>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and applied.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually not applied yet.
> >>>>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> >>>>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> >>>>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> >>>>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the policy ...
> >>>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> >>>>
> >>>> So the patches should wait 21.11.
> >>>> Everybody agree?
> >>>
> >>> Looks good to me to postpone.
> >>>
> >>> @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
> >>>
> >>> Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
> >>> this ABI breakge[1]?
> >>>
> >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> From the policy ...
> >>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
> >>> hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
> >>> change."
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it?
> >
>
> You'll note the original reply pointing at the ABI Policy was from myself.
> So I would be in favor of retention until 21.11.
>
> Thats said...
>
> We should think about making the rules less strict for 32bit in future, from 21.11 onwards perhaps.
> How many OS Vendors are shipping 32bit OSs these days for example?

Agree on 32bit.

The DLB driver removal patch from @McDaniel, Timothy
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
is deleting the complete driver. So it does not look like it is
updating the minimum HW requirements
as mentioned in the policy.

So IMO, it is OK to accept his patch for 21.05(ie. remove the driver).
Let me know if there is any objection on this?