On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:12:06AM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:27 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:41:34AM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >> > >> > The real issue in the end is that the __rte_experimental in headers is > >> the > >> > most important thing and can be missed during reviews. > >> > But I found no easy way to detect this. > >> > > >> > Do you have any idea ? > >> > > >> The most direct way is to add a regular expression search to the script > >> that > >> checks the object files. That would be some tricky grep/awk magic, but it > >> should be possible > >> > > > So, wrote something that I hooked in rte.lib.mk. > On a fresh master branch, I can see: > > == Build lib/librte_bbdev > ERROR: rte_bbdev_dequeue_dec_ops is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_dequeue_enc_ops is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_devices is not marked as experimental in this library > headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_enqueue_dec_ops is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_enqueue_enc_ops is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_op_pool_create is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_bbdev_op_type_str is not marked as experimental in this library > headers > > == Build lib/librte_cryptodev > ERROR: rte_crypto_asym_op_strings is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > ERROR: rte_crypto_asym_xform_strings is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > > == Build lib/librte_vhost > ERROR: rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa is not marked as experimental in this > library headers > > Those warnings seem valid, need to double check (bbdev is already known). > > But my script still needs some work to make it lighter... > A fresh build went from: > real 3m25.823s > user 2m42.026s > sys 1m2.730s > to: > real 3m42.442s > user 2m56.733s > sys 1m5.565s > > I think I'd rather adapt it to hook in checkpatches.sh. > Maintainers can then ignore it when the check is broken (my regexp skills > are lacking :)). > The fact that you got it to work this well, this quickly, says they're not that bad to me :).
If you want to post a draft of your patch here, perhaps we can help find ways to speed it up. Well done. Neil > > -- > David Marchand
