From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F58A04AD; Fri, 1 May 2020 15:18:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4A71BFAA; Fri, 1 May 2020 15:18:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B41BF88 for ; Fri, 1 May 2020 15:18:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id y26so4850075ioj.2 for ; Fri, 01 May 2020 06:18:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tnw5xvmkq9CYPlEV1ZOqohBIMH6os4baTQdR/ZKwBcM=; b=FjafvwdZ3Wh5YBVdqXbjjhEhFyFAN/uJb6jrbLXEsFLVe+dcXwp4ss7xWfZMcz126T P3Li+5hI6P5edO8RDs0bjU4QIDPOyi68BOncq5cDaJSn7eqsjWR0zxAa8GcEMB9Z7cct WDOzY17PAvsQkjyBpjsGJa976gWMK0d0ktva+MXkI6Y2JIgTJzwIZqi0g1XxZJaKGXAj kUpQWcJPEDSrraS02aE2L3Sdh9Zxwu43VTrqIMtYh/Hy4BgmfHqVZz0ZVUWHFS66Z6gd GY6cdAU0u/NuZOBXso9iZk7pabmB5tttZF88TJPNB9UlpLu7B6nPQNPumzpypZzbiDI1 y4Yg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tnw5xvmkq9CYPlEV1ZOqohBIMH6os4baTQdR/ZKwBcM=; b=JWXjlT8NT1oTLi453A2C8MNQN6AtZ8Eoq70h0+IJwHIbxuOTJ5+yA4Sh8Bq/zhzKXV EsyMtQqdtL/m75pwAxKbBXITETCAOL9kIuW+OETorf0kHFV6J03vjIa4/64lFKYFHlGY IzI+Z+BglG/WJdem+Voj1RM5CEZb8kesxTf6ob+47fZHpQp3tF1DY/Z53HMApRR/FYAd UVc+C4p7P+nfN9WFyskfs55Bm3kKvhhgbMuJVIHW3VVotk5xYdlO9tjjNJx7Oi3P0HdL LpUNbWVnafW/RF4kRRef5IGiwsl/2E5MIKLPAuXWm7KKcylZH3thGY5H08zpRHJFL/6/ lrSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZLNo3rsdVdJAlw7FunHW/3FWvR78HyeNk8RxcV9evSMi9/35xj toxoBFLRtchdk1YYltIl/m/8X2cMkq7Bep7LUy8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypK5J5BxAkW76YAngfq1zcFzPxloQQ3U87MWgt/9FS65ikKQtBn7k6GCUeTwinEz2S+nJCSwjGUw/JVE8DxlIWk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:5ad:: with SMTP id b13mr3079370jar.113.1588339105882; Fri, 01 May 2020 06:18:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200330160019.29674-1-ndabilpuram@marvell.com> <20200428144535.GC1897@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <19c8b69f68bcdb7ac23126e63456223f7aff0465.camel@debian.org> <1923738.gORTcIGjah@thomas> In-Reply-To: <1923738.gORTcIGjah@thomas> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 18:48:09 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , Bruce Richardson , Ferruh Yigit , Luca Boccassi , Nithin Dabilpuram , "Singh, Jasvinder" , Andrew Rybchenko , "dev@dpdk.org" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "kkanas@marvell.com" , Nithin Dabilpuram , "Kinsella, Ray" , Neil Horman , Kevin Traynor , David Marchand Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add tm support for shaper config in pkt mode 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 Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:24 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 28/04/2020 17:04, Luca Boccassi: > > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 15:45 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > On 4/27/2020 5:59 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > > On 4/27/2020 5:29 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:42 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/27/2020 10:19 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Yigit, Ferruh > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/2020 11:28 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Nithin Dabilpuram > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch also updates tm port/level/node capability structures with > > > > > > > > > > > > exiting features of scheduler wfq packet mode, scheduler wfq byte mode > > > > > > > > > > > > and private/shared shaper byte mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SoftNIC PMD is also updated with new capabilities. > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nithin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like patch is causing ABI break, I am getting following warning [1], > > > > > > > > > > can you please check? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://pastebin.com/XYNFg14u > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The RTE_TM API is marked as experimental, > > > > > > > > > but it looks that this was not correctly marked > > > > > > > > > when __rte_experimental ABI checker was introduced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is marked as experimental at the top of the rte_tm.h, > > > > > > > > > similarly to other APIs introduced around same time, > > > > > > > > > but it was not correctly picked up by the ABI check procedure > > > > > > > > > when later introduced, so __rte_experimental was not added to every function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it time to mature them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you said they are not marked as experimental both in header file (function > > > > > > > > declarations) and .map file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is, they are not marked as experimental in DPDK_20.0 ABI (v19.11), > > > > > > > > so marking them as experimental now will break the ABI. Not sure what to do, > > > > > > > > cc'ed a few ABI related names for comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For me, we need to proceed as the experimental tag removed and APIs become > > > > > > > > mature starting from v19.11, since this is what happened in practice, and remove > > > > > > > > a few existing being experimental references in the doxygen comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, accidentally we can not make a library as NON-experimental. > > > > > > > TM never went through experimental to mature transition(see git log > > > > > > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_tm.h) > > > > > > > It was a bug to not mark as experimental in each function in the ABI process. > > > > > > > Some of the features like packet marking are not even implemented by any HW. > > > > > > > I think, we can make API stable only all the features are implemented > > > > > > > by one or two HW. > > Yes this is what was decided one or two years ago I think. > But rte_tm API was introduced 3 years ago and is implemented by 6 PMDs. None of the 6 PMDS covers all the features. > > > > > Existing experimental marks are text only for human parsing. > > > > > > > > The compiler attribute and build time checks are missing, and the symbol in the > > > > binary doesn't have experimental tag. Our scripts and automated checks won't > > > > detect it as experimental. > > > > > > > > My point is just having experimental comment in header file is not enough to > > > > qualify the APIs as experimental. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, we need to break the ABI to make it work on various HW. > > Yes this is why I was asking in 19.11 to check our API, > in order to avoid such situation. > > > > > > > I am not sure what to do? > > Either manage ABI versioning, or wait 20.11. ABI change are in structures. So the function versioning does not help. So we will wait for 20.11 then :-(