patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Gavin Hu" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "nd" <nd@arm.com>, <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	<thomas@monjalon.net>, <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
	<jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"Honnappa Nagarahalli" <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	"Ruifeng Wang" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
	"Phil Yang" <Phil.Yang@arm.com>,
	"Joyce Kong" <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>, <stable@dpdk.org>,
	"Olivier MATZ" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Rybchenko" <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: replace zero-length markerwith	unnamed union
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:50:37 +0100
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60EA4@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0975BCF34@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:16 PM
> > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Morten Brørup
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 1:31 PM
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
> > > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 12:30 PM
> > >
> > > On 3/9/2020 9:45 AM, Gavin Hu wrote:
> > > > Hi Ferruh,
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > > >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 4:55 PM
> > > >>
> > > >> On 3/7/2020 3:56 PM, Gavin Hu wrote:
> > > >>> Declaring zero-length arrays in other contexts, including as
> > > interior
> > > >>> members of structure objects or as non-member objects, is
> > > discouraged.
> > > >>> Accessing elements of zero-length arrays declared in such
> contexts
> > > is
> > > >>> undefined and may be diagnosed.[1]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fix by using unnamed union and struct.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bugzilla ID: 396
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fixes: 3e6181b07038 ("mbuf: use structure marker from EAL")
> > > >>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>> v2:
> > > >>> * change 'uint64_t rearm_data' to 'uint_64_t rearm_data[1]' to
> fix
> > > >>>   the SFC PMD compiling error on x86. <Kevin Traynor>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>>  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 54
> > > >>> +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > ----
> > > >>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > >> b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > >>> index b9a59c879..34cb152e2 100644
> > > >>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > >>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > >>> @@ -480,31 +480,41 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > > >>>  		rte_iova_t buf_physaddr; /**< deprecated */
> > > >>>  	} __rte_aligned(sizeof(rte_iova_t));
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -	/* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */
> > > >>> -	RTE_MARKER64 rearm_data;
> > > >>> -	uint16_t data_off;
> > > >>> -
> > > >>> -	/**
> > > >>> -	 * Reference counter. Its size should at least equal to the
> > size
> > > >>> -	 * of port field (16 bits), to support zero-copy broadcast.
> > > >>> -	 * It should only be accessed using the following
> functions:
> > > >>> -	 * rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(), rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(), and
> > > >>> -	 * rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(). The functionality of these
> functions
> > > (atomic,
> > > >>> -	 * or non-atomic) is controlled by the
> > > >> CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC
> > > >>> -	 * config option.
> > > >>> -	 */
> > > >>>  	RTE_STD_C11
> > > >>>  	union {
> > > >>> -		rte_atomic16_t refcnt_atomic; /**< Atomically
> accessed
> > > >> refcnt */
> > > >>> -		/** Non-atomically accessed refcnt */
> > > >>> -		uint16_t refcnt;
> > > >>> -	};
> > > >>> -	uint16_t nb_segs;         /**< Number of segments. */
> > > >>> +		/* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor
> rearm
> > */
> > > >>> +		uint64_t rearm_data[1];
> > > >> We are using zero length array as markers only and know what we
> are
> > > doing
> > > >> with them,
> > > >> what would you think disabling the warning instead of increasing
> > > >> the complexity in mbuf struct?
> > > > Okay, I will add -Wno-zero-length-bounds to the compiler
> toolchain
> > > flags.
> > >
> > > This would be my preference but I would like to get more input, can
> > > you please for more comments before changing the implementation in
> > > case there are some strong opinion on it?
> > >
> >
> > I have some input to this discussion.
> >
> > Let me repeat what Gavin's GCC reference states: Declaring zero-
> length
> > arrays [...] as interior members of structure objects [...] is
> > discouraged.
> >
> > Why would we do something that the compiler documentation says is
> > discouraged? I think the problem (i.e. using discouraged techniques)
> > should be fixed, not the symptom (i.e. getting warnings about using
> > discouraged techniques).
> >
> > Compiler warnings are here to help, and in my experience they are
> actually
> > very helpful, although avoiding them often requires somewhat more
> verbose
> > source code. Disabling this warning not only affects this file, but
> > disables warnings about potential bugs in other source code too.
> >
> > Generally, disabling compiler warnings is a slippery slope. It would
> be
> > optimal if DPDK could be compiled with -Wall, and it would probably
> reduce
> > the number of released bugs too.
> >
> > With that said, sometimes the optimal solution has to give way for
> the
> > practical solution. And this is a core file, so we should thread
> lightly.
> >
> >
> > As for an alternative solution, perhaps we can get rid of the MARKERs
> in
> > the struct and #define them instead. Not as elegant as Gavin's
> suggested
> > union based solution, but it might bring inspiration...
> >
> > struct rte_mbuf {
> >     ...
> >     } __rte_aligned(sizeof(rte_iova_t));
> >
> >     uint16_t data_off;
> >     ...
> > }
> >
> > #define rte_mbuf_rearm_data(m) ((uint64_t *)m->data_off)
> >
> >
> +1 for this, it's very similar to what I was going to suggest, which
> was:
> 
> uint16_t data_off;
> #define _REARM_DATA data_off
> 
> but your suggestion is probably cleaner than mine.
> 
> /Bruce

I prefer Gavin's academically correct solution, i.e. using unions.

But check out the code using rearm_data! It's all drivers, and they all type cast it, except the SFC PMD.

So Bruce's suggestion is probably more workable than mine, although the #define'd name is missing an RTE prefix. (And mine is missing an &.)


And a completely alternative route is open: Type cast rearm_data in the SFC PMD, and postpone the MARKER discussion to later.

-Morten


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-09 14:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-03 16:27 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v1] mbuf: replace zero-length marker with " Gavin Hu
2020-03-04 12:32 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Kevin Traynor
2020-03-07 14:52   ` Gavin Hu
2020-03-07 15:56 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Gavin Hu
2020-03-09  8:55   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2020-03-09  9:45     ` Gavin Hu
2020-03-09 11:29       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-03-09 13:30         ` Morten Brørup
2020-03-09 14:16           ` Richardson, Bruce
2020-03-09 14:50             ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2020-03-11  7:50           ` Gavin Hu
2020-03-11  9:04             ` Morten Brørup
2020-03-11 12:07               ` Bruce Richardson
2020-03-13  7:36                 ` Gavin Hu
2020-03-13  9:22                 ` Gavin Hu
2020-04-07 17:13                   ` Kevin Traynor
2020-04-08 15:04                     ` Gavin Hu
2020-04-08 15:22                       ` David Marchand
2020-04-09  9:48                         ` Gavin Hu
2020-04-09 10:49                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-09 16:09                             ` Ray Kinsella
2020-04-11  2:50                             ` Gavin Hu
2020-05-14 13:24                         ` Kevin Traynor
2020-03-09 15:47     ` Stephen Hemminger

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=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60EA4@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
    --to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Joyce.Kong@arm.com \
    --cc=Phil.Yang@arm.com \
    --cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git