On 11/5/19 3:51 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 05/11/2019 13:27, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 11/5/19 3:23 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 11/5/2019 12:12 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>> On 11/5/19 3:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>> On 11/5/2019 11:49 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>>>> On 11/5/19 2:36 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > >>>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>> /** >>>>>>>>> + * @internal >>>>>>>>> + * Check if the selected Rx queue is hairpin queue. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * @param dev >>>>>>>>> + * Pointer to the selected device. >>>>>>>>> + * @param queue_id >>>>>>>>> + * The selected queue. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * @return >>>>>>>>> + * - (1) if the queue is hairpin queue, 0 otherwise. >>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>> +int >>>>>>>>> +rte_eth_dev_is_rx_hairpin_queue(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t >>>>>>>> queue_id); >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>>>> + * @internal >>>>>>>>> + * Check if the selected Tx queue is hairpin queue. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * @param dev >>>>>>>>> + * Pointer to the selected device. >>>>>>>>> + * @param queue_id >>>>>>>>> + * The selected queue. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * @return >>>>>>>>> + * - (1) if the queue is hairpin queue, 0 otherwise. >>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>> +int >>>>>>>>> +rte_eth_dev_is_tx_hairpin_queue(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t >>>>>>>> queue_id); > [...] >>>>>>>> These are causing build error, thanks Jerin for catching, because they >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> internal and called by a public static inline API, so whoever calls >>>>>>>> 'rte_eth_rx/tx_burst()' APIs in the shared build, can't find >>>>>>>> 'rte_eth_dev_is_rx/tx_hairpin_queue()' functions [1], >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as far as I can see there are two options: >>>>>>>> 1) Remove these checks >>>>>>>> 2) Make 'rte_eth_dev_is_rx/tx_hairpin_queue()' public API instead of >>>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is a value to make 'rte_eth_dev_is_rx/tx_hairpin_queue()' >>>>>>>> public API >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> should go with (2) else (1). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can skip the tests, >>>>>>> But it was Andrew request so we must get is response. >>>>>>> It was also his empathies that they should be internal. >>>>>> It is important for me to keep rte_eth_dev_state internal and >>>>>> few patches ago rte_eth_dev_is_rx_hairpin_queue() was inline. >>>>> Are you saying you don't want to option to make >>>>> 'rte_eth_dev_is_rx_hairpin_queue()' static inline because it will force >>>>> the >>>>> 'RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_xxx' being public? >>>> Yes. >>> +1 >>> >>>>>> I'm OK to make the function experimental or keep it internal >>>>>> (no API/ABI stability requirements) but externally visible (in .map). >>>>> I think we can't do this, add a function deceleration to the public >>>>> header file >>>>> and add it to the .map file but keep it internal. Instead we can make it a >>>>> proper API and it should be experimental at least first release. >>>> We have discussed similar thing with Olivier recently [1]. >>>> >>>> [1] http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20191030142938.bpi4txlrebqfq7uw@platinum/ >>> Yes we can say they are internal but there won't be anything preventing >>> applications to use them. >> >> That's true, but making it internal says - don't use it. >> Anyway, I have no strong opinion on experimental vs internal. >> >>>>> The question above was do we need this API, or instead should remove the >>>>> check >>>>> from rx/tx_burst APIs? >>>> I think these checks are useful to ensure that these functions >>>> are not used for hairpin queues. At least to catch it with debug >>>> enabled. >>> OK, if so what not make them proper API? Any concern on it? > > Why we should not use this API in applications?
I think the valid question is why application needs the API. Basically I don't mind, just want to be sure that only required API is exposed.
