05/11/2019 13:53, Andrew Rybchenko: > 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.
Because hairpin queues are not standard queues, we may need to distinguish them. I see it as a good helper for applications. Am I missing something obvious?
