> -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:41 PM > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > tho...@monjalon.net; sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] Re: [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol check > when map file under drivers > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:41:03PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 6:43 PM > > > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> > > > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > tho...@monjalon.net; sta...@dpdk.org > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] Re: [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol > > > check when map file under drivers > > > > > > External Email > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:54:13AM +0000, Jerin Jacob > > > Kollanukkaran > > > wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 4:21 PM > > > > > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > tho...@monjalon.net; sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] devtools: skip the > > > > > symbol check when map file under drivers > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but I'm not ok with this, because many of our DPDK > > > > > > > PMDs have functions that get exported which are meant to be > > > > > > > called by applications directly. The > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Just to update my knowledge, Should those API needs to go > > > > > > through ABI/API depreciation process? > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I am concerned about the APIs, which is called > > > > > > between drviers not the application. For example, > > > > > > drivers/common/dpaax/rte_common_dpaax_version.map > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not interface to application rather it is for intra driver > > > > > > case. > > > > > > I think, I can change my logic to Skip the symbols which NOT > > > > > > starting with > > > > > rte_. > > > > > > Agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > Context: > > > > > > I am adding a new driver/common/octeontx2 directory and it has > > > > > > some API which Needs to shared between drivers not to the > > > > > > application. For me, it does not make sense to go through any > > > > > > ABI > > > process in such case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not, but other drivers will have APIs designed for apps to > > > > > call directly - some NIC drivers have them, and I suspect that > > > > > rawdev drivers will need them a lot. Therefore, it's best to > > > > > have the drivers directory scanned by our tooling. > > > > > > > > Agreed. But all of those API which called directly called from > > > > application is starts with rte_ symbol. How about skipping the > > > > symbols which is NOT start with rte_* > > > > example: > > > > drivers/common/octeontx/rte_common_octeontx_version.map > > > > drivers/common/dpaax/rte_common_dpaax_version.map > > > > > > > > > > No, that won't work. If you export a function, it doesn't matter if > > > its named > > > rte_* or not. Its accessible from any library/application that > > > cares to call it, > > > > IMO, The name prefix matters. The rte_* should denote it a DPDK API > > and application suppose to use it. > > > It doesn't, its just a convention. We have no documentation that indicates > what the meaning of an rte_* prefix is specficially, above and beyond the > fact thats how we name functions in the DPDK. If you want to submit a patch > to formalize the meaning of function prefixes, you're welcome too (though I > won't support it, perhaps others will). But even if you do, it doesn't > address > the underlying problem, which is that applications still have access to those > symbols. > Maintaining an ABI by assertion of prefix is really a lousy way to communicate > what functions should be accessed by an application and which shouldn't. If > a function is exported, and included in the header file, people will try to > use
The current scheme in the driver/common is that, the header files are NOT made It as public ie not installed make install. The consumer driver includes that using relative path wrt DPDK source directory. Anyway I will add experimental section to make tool happy.
