10/01/2020 10:28, Slava Ovsiienko: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 09/01/2020 17:22, Slava Ovsiienko: > > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > > On 1/9/2020 3:27 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > > >> On 1/9/2020 10:56 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > >>> + assert(ci != txq->cq_pi); > > > > >>> + assert((txq->fcqs[ci & txq->cqe_m] >> 16) == cqe- > > > > >>> wqe_counter); > > > > >> > > > > >> And same comments on these as previous patches, we spend some > > > > >> effort to remove the 'rte_panic' from drivers, this is almost same > > > > >> thing. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think a driver shouldn't decide to exit whole application, it's > > > > >> effect should be limited to the driver. > > > > >> > > > > >> Assert is useful for debug and during development, but not sure > > > > >> having them in the production code. > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, "assert" is standard C function. Compiled only if there is > > > > > no NDEBUG > > > > defined. > > > > > So, assert does exactly what you are saying - provide the debug > > > > > break not allowing the bug to evolve. And no this break in production > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since mlx driver is using NDEBUG defined, what you said is right > > > > indeed. But why not using RTE_ASSERT to be consistent with rest. > > > > There is a specific config option to control assert > > > > (RTE_ENABLE_ASSERT) and anyone using it will get different behavior with > > mlx5. > > > > > > We have the dedicated option to control mlx5 debug: > > > CONFIG_RTE_ENABLE_ASSERT controls the whole DPDK. > > > > No, it controls the whole DPDK except mlx PMDs. > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_DEBUG controls NDEBUG for mlx5 > > > > > > From my practice - I switch the mlx5 debug option (in the process of > > > the debugging/testing datapath and checking the resulting performance, > > > by directly defining NDEBUG in mlx5.h and not reconfiguring/rebuilding the > > entire DPDK), this fine grained option seems to be useful. > > > > I don't like having mlx PMDs behave differently. > > It make things difficult for newcomers. > > And with meson, such options are cleaned up. > > Do you mean we should eliminate NDEBUG usage and convert it to some explicit > "MLX5_NDEBUG" > (and convert "assert" to "MLX5_ASSERT") ?
I mean we should use RTE_ASSERT in mlx5, as it is already done in some files.
