On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 22/05/2019 15:40, Neil Horman:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:12:34PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:54AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:26:28AM +0530, jer...@marvell.com wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drivers do not have ABI.
> > > > > > > Skip the symbol check if map file under drivers directory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 4bec48184e33 ("devtools: add checks for ABI symbol
> > > > > > > addition")
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > > > > > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, they definately should, they are API's just as any other in the
> > > > core DPDK
> > > > library.
> > >
> > > OK
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > No, Thats just one case, and if those calls are between drivers, so be
> > > > it, but
> > > > those still need to be stable, and we have other examples (like the
> > > > bonding
> > > > or dummy driver), which have additional APIs that are explicitly meant
> > > > to be
> > > > used by an application.
> > >
> > > There is no disagreement on the API that exposed to application.
> > > I am concerned with internal driver APIs. For example, I am getting
> > > following warning
> > >
> > > ERROR: symbol otx2_mbox_alloc_msg_rsp is added in the DPDK_19.05 section,
> > > but is expected to be added in the EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> > >
> > Thats a warning about the fact that you added an API call in a versioned
> > section
> > of a library instead of the Experimental section, thats part of our policy.
> > New
> > APIs need to go through the experimental tag first.
> >
> > I understand what you are saying about driver only apis, and I mentioned
> > that in
> > my other email farther down the thread. The problem is that "driver only
> > apis"
> > are currently just a conceptual thing for us to discuss. They're still,
> > practially speaking, API's that any downstream user can access and become
> > dependent on, which we need to manage, either by keeping the API stable, so
> > it
> > stays usable for all callers, or by developing a way to mark driver only
> > API's
> > as such. I proposed a method that you might use to do the latter in my
> > other email.
> >
> > > This API suppose to be called only a octeontx2 network driver from
> > > octeontx2 common driver
> > > i.e application should not expect any stability on intra driver functions
> > > or it does not meant to
> > > be used by application.
> > >
> > Ok, but again, your assertion is that its driver to driver only, but in
> > practicaility, that assertion is irrelevant. Those symbols are still
> > exposed
> > for general use, and weather or not you say they aren't part of the ABI, the
> > fact of the matter is, there is no way to tell the difference from a linked
> > object standpoint. Instead of hobbling the tool to just not scan anything,
> > you
> > need to find a way to differentiate these symbols, so that you can enforce
> > your
> > assertion that there are restrictions on where these APIs are called from.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > > Thomas,
> > > Any thought on this?
>
> As Neil said, we need to differentiate the internal APIs.
> We already have this issue in a number of places like EAL, or ethdev,
> and it was poorly addressed with some comments like "@internal".
>
> Practically I don't care about stability of these internal functions,
> but I agree that it creates a mess in the tooling and confuse users.
>
Agreed, If we can mark them in a way that can enforce no outside usage, then
there need not be any ABI compatibility guarantee
Neil
>
>
