From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2538942672; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:38:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B78402AA; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:38:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B18D40287 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:38:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1695987509; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cToB9+gS5QcqKPpaifGvfRNZ/GZEkoladrkp0AcgLGA=; b=TChjrmoCqPqSw4/aGVn5VEXobPWqXDYyApMUpTVU6ZdCtKmoKqfuhpxMLjLRM8viYi9kKL VE0X7KaCOTXEQTVZZ6UjpNj3kxfmkfLCgrE4p6uZHiTK30pdjvQs9ovWYFG1IMQtX/PZej cxruUDt9i0TahpXpj4Ods2v0puL0KB0= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-621-k04qSg-PPPq806l_vV6u_g-1; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:38:26 -0400 X-MC-Unique: k04qSg-PPPq806l_vV6u_g-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5041a779c75so20188247e87.2 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 04:38:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695987505; x=1696592305; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cToB9+gS5QcqKPpaifGvfRNZ/GZEkoladrkp0AcgLGA=; b=BJDX/sMamnBDSgJKvltN1woqnHGjgPrz6Df8qD6/NIqew4MEZT6Hat4e+ZHFFv0rqU a4UGRoMvpZM3daREE5nXs7Kyd39boUePBFbS3prHiLluUjcUoeeL1/C3OXaqsBVPvs4n Bbco8791lL2xQQZQU5LJ1k5YM63RFOwhuILnAPXv4rTue40wNp+FKQa/FJ1GhSGtaTC/ avjbtWeXKuYeM1/n9TNpQZ7NKxYufv/0X4CW/WPjXqsu6YG25+4KnDIzIBDcGEds7Q6x hSMWzf4f8y4TVHvEPPEbrhK9dzUcX7zfOb689fVDBzBiOfbTwsisq7p35pi3qXlWexDF z8xQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwetETMtQKn/Db049NozU6tz+hce1Mgly3CNciK8kTyidB2ubk3 137MLTMmoyWWbgihnzvrwZ/FUOmrpaY0eOFf/gdZx6TMRZ8HsX0JV6dvJ6a0aETSB2LIZ1QiMcG N8NDpDmL67cYdUw4dsn4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2346:b0:503:2e6:6862 with SMTP id p6-20020a056512234600b0050302e66862mr4138807lfu.32.1695987505379; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 04:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHl+Q2i9ju3wvHMXij8/whStarPv9J4ycnpGNVHRI4+6TAsO98MqSf1iTaJpix1P9x/B/tYsOZ5NSDXHknbUXE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2346:b0:503:2e6:6862 with SMTP id p6-20020a056512234600b0050302e66862mr4138786lfu.32.1695987505022; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 04:38:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1691717521-1025-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> <10054797.lvqk35OSZv@thomas> In-Reply-To: <10054797.lvqk35OSZv@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:38:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Bruce Richardson , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , Tyler Retzlaff , dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org, Honnappa Nagarahalli , Ruifeng Wang , Jerin Jacob , Sunil Kumar Kori , =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , Joyce Kong , David Christensen , Konstantin Ananyev , David Hunt X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:26=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 29/09/2023 11:34, David Marchand: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:26=E2=80=AFAM Bruce Richardson > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:02:38AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:54=E2=80=AFAM Morten Br=C3=B8rup wrote: > > > > > In my opinion, our move to C11 thus makes RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON obsole= te. > > > > > > > > That's my thought too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should mark RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON as deprecated, and disallow RTE_B= UILD_BUG_ON in new code. Perhaps checkpatches could catch this? > > > > > > > > For a clear deprecation of a part of DPDK API, I don't see a need t= o > > > > add something in checkpatch. > > > > Putting a RTE_DEPRECATED in RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON directly triggers a bu= ild > > > > warning (caught by CI since we run with Werror). > > > > > > > > > > Would it not be sufficient to just make it an alias for the C11 stati= c > > > assertions? It's not like its a lot of code to maintain, and if app u= sers > > > have it in their code I'm not sure we get massive benefit from forcin= g them > > > to edit their code. I'd rather see it kept as a one-line macro purely= from > > > a backward compatibility viewpoint. We can replace internal usages, t= hough > > > - which can be checked by checkpatch. > > > > No, there is no massive benefit, just trying to reduce our ever > > growing API surface. > > > > Note, this macro should have been kept internal but it was introduced > > at a time such matter was not considered... > > I agree with all. > Now taking techboard hat, we agreed to avoid breaking API if possible. > So we should keep RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON forever even if not used. > Internally we can replace its usages. So back to the original topic, I get that static_assert is ok for this patc= h. --=20 David Marchand