Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Release Status Meeting 16/01/2020

[Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>]

Hi Konstantin,

> Hi Akhil,
> 
> > > >
> > > > * next-net-crypto
> > > >   * Pull request sent
> > > >   * There is a performance concern on some ipsec-gw patches,
> > > >     they can go in -rc2 if the issue is solved
> > > >   * CPU crypto from last release may be breaking ABI, need to confirm
> > >
> > > AFAIK, there is no ABI breakage.
> >
> > This is the output of validate-abi.sh.
> >
> > 	Change 							Effect
> > 1 Field sym_cpu_process has been added to this type. 	              1) This field will
> not be initialized by old clients.
> >                                                                                                                    2) Size of the
> inclusive type has been changed.
> >
> > 								NOTE: this
> field should be accessed only from the new library
> > functions, otherwise it may result in crash or incorrect behavior of applications.
> > 2 Size of this type has been changed from 128 bytes to 136 bytes. 	The
> fields or parameters of such data type may be incorrectly
> > initialized or accessed by old client applications.
> 
> This is struct rte_cryptodev_ops, which is AFAIK, not part of public API.
> So not sure, why do you consider it as ABI breakage?
> 

If this is not an issue, than I am fine with it.

> >
> > Apart from that, IPSEC also has breakage, but that is experimental, so not an
> issue.
> >
> > >
> > > >     and discussed dummy variable is missing, may be postponed to next
> release
> > >
> > > Not sure I understand last sentence, could the author explain
> > > what dummy variables we are talking about.
> >
> > In one of the techboard meeting around 19.11 timeframe, during the
> discussion for approving methodology for CPU-crypto, it was
> > proposed that in order to avoid delay, a dummy variable can be introduced in
> cryptodev API/ABI to avoid any ABI breakage in
> > upcoming releases. But this was not done.
> 
> Dummy variable for what?
> If you are talking about sym_cpu_process - we just added it into
> rte_cryptodev_ops, instead of
> ' struct rte_cryptodev' instead.
> That way we avoid any ABI breakage without introducing any churn in
> rte_cryptodev itself , see above.

Then why was there so much resistance on this approach when there is no ABI breakage.
I thought there was ABI breakage because of this change.

BTW this patchset is a bit late and it came after merge deadline 15 Jan.
Ideally all library related patches should go in RC1.
I would check if I could make it to the RC2.
I have 3 IPSec series to work on before RC2.

-Akhil