From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol check when map file under drivers
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 16:12:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2338315.GuTbrZZCDE@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190522134056.GC18629@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
22/05/2019 15:40, Neil Horman:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:12:34PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:54AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:26:28AM +0530, jerinj@marvell.com wrote:
> > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drivers do not have ABI.
> > > > > > Skip the symbol check if map file under drivers directory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: 4bec48184e33 ("devtools: add checks for ABI symbol
> > > > > > addition")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but I'm not ok with this, because many of our DPDK PMDs have
> > > > > functions that get exported which are meant to be called by
> > > > > applications directly. The
> > > >
> > > > OK. Just to update my knowledge, Should those API needs to go through
> > > > ABI/API depreciation process?
> > > >
> > > Yes, they definately should, they are API's just as any other in the core DPDK
> > > library.
> >
> > OK
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Actually, I am concerned about the APIs, which is called between
> > > > drviers not the application. For example,
> > > > drivers/common/dpaax/rte_common_dpaax_version.map
> > > >
> > > > it is not interface to application rather it is for intra driver case.
> > > > I think, I can change my logic to Skip the symbols which NOT starting with
> > > rte_.
> > > > Agree?
> > > >
> > > No, Thats just one case, and if those calls are between drivers, so be it, but
> > > those still need to be stable, and we have other examples (like the bonding
> > > or dummy driver), which have additional APIs that are explicitly meant to be
> > > used by an application.
> >
> > There is no disagreement on the API that exposed to application.
> > I am concerned with internal driver APIs. For example, I am getting following warning
> >
> > ERROR: symbol otx2_mbox_alloc_msg_rsp is added in the DPDK_19.05 section, but is expected to be added in the EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> >
> Thats a warning about the fact that you added an API call in a versioned section
> of a library instead of the Experimental section, thats part of our policy. New
> APIs need to go through the experimental tag first.
>
> I understand what you are saying about driver only apis, and I mentioned that in
> my other email farther down the thread. The problem is that "driver only apis"
> are currently just a conceptual thing for us to discuss. They're still,
> practially speaking, API's that any downstream user can access and become
> dependent on, which we need to manage, either by keeping the API stable, so it
> stays usable for all callers, or by developing a way to mark driver only API's
> as such. I proposed a method that you might use to do the latter in my other email.
>
> > This API suppose to be called only a octeontx2 network driver from octeontx2 common driver
> > i.e application should not expect any stability on intra driver functions or it does not meant to
> > be used by application.
> >
> Ok, but again, your assertion is that its driver to driver only, but in
> practicaility, that assertion is irrelevant. Those symbols are still exposed
> for general use, and weather or not you say they aren't part of the ABI, the
> fact of the matter is, there is no way to tell the difference from a linked
> object standpoint. Instead of hobbling the tool to just not scan anything, you
> need to find a way to differentiate these symbols, so that you can enforce your
> assertion that there are restrictions on where these APIs are called from.
>
> Neil
>
> > Thomas,
> > Any thought on this?
As Neil said, we need to differentiate the internal APIs.
We already have this issue in a number of places like EAL, or ethdev,
and it was poorly addressed with some comments like "@internal".
Practically I don't care about stability of these internal functions,
but I agree that it creates a mess in the tooling and confuse users.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-22 14:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-22 13:12 Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-05-22 13:40 ` Neil Horman
2019-05-22 14:12 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-05-22 14:33 ` Neil Horman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-21 19:56 jerinj
2019-05-21 20:27 ` Neil Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2338315.GuTbrZZCDE@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).