Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] Remove validate-abi.sh from tree

[Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>]

On 09/04/2020 16:18, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 09/04/2020 16:52, Ray Kinsella:
>> On 09/04/2020 11:59, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 09/04/2020 12:45, Ray Kinsella:
>>>> On 09/04/2020 11:43, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 06:39:54AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:57:34AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2020 20:56, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>>>> +The syntax of the ``check-abi.sh`` utility is::
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +   ./devtools/check-abi.sh <refdir> <newdir>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (from v1 feedback)
>>>>>>> Could we simplify this all greatly, by telling people to use the meson/ninja build,
>>>>>>> so they get this checking out of the box, without all the headache below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think bruce noted that was never merged, correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, correct. :-(
>>>>
>>>> apologies, was there a reason?
>>>
>>> Because build tool job is building, not checking.
>>> It would be wrong to make (slow) checks mandatory in all builds.
>>>
>>> The need is to enforce checking ABI.
>>> The result is already published by Travis in patchwork and in an
>>> email to the author I believe.
>>> Not checking email and patchwork is not a good excuse.
>>>
>>> Patchwork must be a mandatory read for everybody for all checks
>>> in general. Let's not give up on general CI workflow.
>>>
>>
>> Thomas 
>>
>> You are trying to solve two problems at once; CI tooling and ABI.
>> Let's try to solve one at a time.
> 
> No, you want to mix two problems in a single tool :-)
> 
> 
>> 1. The ABI check, will make the build _marginally_ slower.
>> You _should_ only need to rebuild the changes between A and B.
> 
> Not so marginal.
> A re-build takes less than a second. A mandatory check takes 10 secs
> on my machine.
> 
> 
>> 2. The meson/ninja are an order of magnitude faster than GNU Make. 
>> We can afford this check.
> 
> I am doing such build 10 times (each target) per patch.
> But that's not the main issue.
> 
> 
>> 3. If we want to lessen the ABI burden and send the correct message.
>> It should be a build blocker, contributors need to hear the message loud and clear.
> 
> The developer needs to get or build/save the ABI reference.
> Making such ABI reference for each target is not so obvious:
>   - all symbols must be enabled (dependencies)
>   - some fixes may be needed for some compilers
> 
> 
>> Most important people _consuming_ DPDK will never see this message.
>> Only people _changing_ the ABI will see it - the people we want to hear the message loud and clear.
> 
> No, they will have issue in DPDK compilation if something in the check
> goes wrong. We should not bother end users with internal checks.
> 
> 
> The message is 
> a) run the check by
>   1) setting DPDK_ABI_REF_VERSION on command line or in devel.config file
>   2) running devtools/test-build.sh or devtools/test-meson-builds.sh
> b) check what Travis is reporting in
>   - email to you
>   - patchwork reports
> 
> I think Travis report is convenient to use.
> The local check is integrated in build scripts
> but cannot be run by default because of the reasons above.
> 
> 

Thomas the reality on this is that people have a tendency to filter this messages into an email folder
and don't always see them. 

My 2c is that this will always be a struggle unless we find a way to make it un-ignore-able.
Hence my build-wiring suggestion. 

Ray K