From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6693BA05D3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:33:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7224C88; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:33:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903614C80; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-405a-0-0-0-162e.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:405a::162e] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1hTSJE-0002Fc-TR; Wed, 22 May 2019 10:33:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:33:09 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20190522143309.GE18629@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <20190522134056.GC18629@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <2338315.GuTbrZZCDE@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2338315.GuTbrZZCDE@xps> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol check when map file under drivers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 22/05/2019 15:40, Neil Horman: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:12:34PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:54AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > > > > wrote: > > > > > From: Neil Horman > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:26:28AM +0530, jerinj@marvell.com wrote: > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > Agreed, If we can mark them in a way that can enforce no outside usage, then there need not be any ABI compatibility guarantee Neil > >