Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] ip_frag: extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header()

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

30/10/2018 19:09, Cody Doucette:
> OK, I will send three separate patches plus a cover letter.
> 
> I seem to be having trouble with checkpatch complaining that new symbols
> are not inserted into the EXPERIMENTAL section of the .map file:
> 
> ERROR: symbol break is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol const is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol &frag_hdr_buf) is added in a section other than the
> EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> INFO: symbol frag_hdr is being removed, ensure that it has gone
> through the deprecation process
> INFO: symbol  is added but patch has insuficient context to determine
> the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL
> ERROR: symbol offset, is added in a section other than the
> EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol offset is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol return is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> INFO: symbol  is added but patch has insuficient context to determine
> the section name please ensure the version is EXPERIMENTAL
> ERROR: symbol sizeof(*frag_hdr), is added in a section other than the
> EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol size_t is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> INFO: symbol struct is being removed, ensure that it has gone through
> the deprecation process
> ERROR: symbol struct is added in a section other than the EXPERIMENTAL
> section of the version map
> ERROR: symbol uint8_t is added in a section other than the
> EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> 
> Even when moving the new symbol into the EXPERIMENTAL version and
> recreating the patch, checkpatch still issues the same errors.
> 
> Can I leave the .map file as it is in v3? If not, any suggestions on what
> checkpatch is looking for me to do here?

Don't worry, it is a bug in the script.
+Cc Neil who already looked at this issue.


> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:36 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > 30/10/2018 10:46, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > > 28/10/2018 21:54, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > 27/07/2018 15:52, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > > > Extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header() to skip over any
> > > > > > > other IPv6 extension headers when finding the fragment header.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to RFC 8200, there is no guarantee that the IPv6
> > > > > > > Fragment extension header will come before any other extension
> > > > > > > header, even though it is recommended.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qiaobin Fu <qiaobinf@bu.edu>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > v3:
> > > > > > > * Removed compilation flag D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 from the
> > > > > > >   failsafe driver to allow compilation on freebsd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How failsafe is related to ip_frag?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > * Moved IPv6 extension header definitions to lib_net.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/Makefile               |  1 -
> > > > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/meson.build            |  1 -
> > > > > > >  examples/ip_reassembly/main.c               |  6 ++--
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag.h            | 23 ++++++-------
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag_version.map  |  1 +
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 38
> > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_reassembly.c    |  4 +--
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h                     | 27 +++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_port/rte_port_ras.c              |  6 ++--
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in failsafe, rte_net and rte_port look like garbage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, the ip_frag part requires some review.
> > > > > > +Cc Konstantin, the maintainer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Garbage in what sense? I would be happy to amend with a little more
> > > > > information.
> > > > >
> > > > > The changes to failsafe and rte_net were from previous reviews from
> > > > > Konstantin:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-June/106023.html
> > > > >
> > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108701.html
> > > >
> > > > After a better look, the change in rte_port is fine.
> > > >
> > > > But the changes in failsafe and rte_net would be better in their own
> > patch.
> > > > You can have 3 patches in a patchset (with a cover letter to explain
> > the
> > > > global idea).
> > > > Then, failsafe and rte_net changes must be reviewed by their
> > maintainers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The patch looks good to me.
> > > About failsafe changes - the reason for that was that failsafe driver
> > didn't build
> > > properly with the proposed changes.
> > > Gaetan was ok to remove that extra compiler flag:
> > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108826.html
> >
> > OK. Please send the failsafe patch as the first of the series.
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>