On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:27:02AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > On 4/29/2020 10:03 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:45:44AM +0100, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:54 PM > >>> To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian > >>> <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com> > >>> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh > >>> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Nithin > >>> Dabilpuram <nithind1...@gmail.com>; Singh, Jasvinder > >>> <jasvinder.si...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > >>> <arybche...@solarflare.com>; dev@dpdk.org; jer...@marvell.com; > >>> kka...@marvell.com; Nithin Dabilpuram <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; > >>> Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinse...@intel.com>; Neil Horman > >>> <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>; David > >>> Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add tm support for shaper > >>> config in pkt mode > >>> > >>> 28/04/2020 17:04, Luca Boccassi: > >>>> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 15:45 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:59 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Ferruh Yigit > >>> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:29 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:42 PM Ferruh Yigit > >>> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 10:19 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2020 11:28 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Nithin Dabilpuram <nithind1...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch also updates tm port/level/node capability > >>> structures with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exiting features of scheduler wfq packet mode, > >>> scheduler wfq byte mode > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and private/shared shaper byte mode. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SoftNIC PMD is also updated with new capabilities. > >>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Nithin, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like patch is causing ABI break, I am getting following > >>> warning [1], > >>>>>>>>>>>> can you please check? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pastebin.com_XYNFg14u&d=DwIDaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=ej5sP3-cEhEoCTZOia-QivXqgljtzBcMLtZGs-5c-Uc&s=B8z_5mQ2xO3C1izjmRe2zBApMrCUcW6KcAN-adglhJQ&e= > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The RTE_TM API is marked as experimental, > >>>>>>>>>>> but it looks that this was not correctly marked > >>>>>>>>>>> when __rte_experimental ABI checker was introduced. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is marked as experimental at the top of the rte_tm.h, > >>>>>>>>>>> similarly to other APIs introduced around same time, > >>>>>>>>>>> but it was not correctly picked up by the ABI check procedure > >>>>>>>>>>> when later introduced, so __rte_experimental was not added > >>> to every function. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> :( > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Is it time to mature them? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As you said they are not marked as experimental both in header > >>> file (function > >>>>>>>>>> declarations) and .map file. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The problem is, they are not marked as experimental in > >>> DPDK_20.0 ABI (v19.11), > >>>>>>>>>> so marking them as experimental now will break the ABI. Not > >>> sure what to do, > >>>>>>>>>> cc'ed a few ABI related names for comment. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For me, we need to proceed as the experimental tag removed > >>> and APIs become > >>>>>>>>>> mature starting from v19.11, since this is what happened in > >>> practice, and remove > >>>>>>>>>> a few existing being experimental references in the doxygen > >>> comments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think, accidentally we can not make a library as NON- > >>> experimental. > >>>>>>>>> TM never went through experimental to mature transition(see git > >>> log > >>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_tm.h) > >>>>>>>>> It was a bug to not mark as experimental in each function in the > >>> ABI process. > >>>>>>>>> Some of the features like packet marking are not even > >>> implemented by any HW. > >>>>>>>>> I think, we can make API stable only all the features are > >>> implemented > >>>>>>>>> by one or two HW. > >>> > >>> Yes this is what was decided one or two years ago I think. > >>> But rte_tm API was introduced 3 years ago and is implemented by 6 PMDs. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Fair enough, specially if the API is not ready yet. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But they were part of stable ABI, and marking them as experimental > >>> now will > >>>>>>>> break the old applications using these APIs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> it is still marked as EXPERIMENTAL everywhere and API is not ready > >>> yet. > >>> > >>> rte_tm is implemented in 6 PMDs. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> Existing experimental marks are text only for human parsing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The compiler attribute and build time checks are missing, and the > >>> symbol in the > >>>>>> binary doesn't have experimental tag. Our scripts and automated > >>> checks won't > >>>>>> detect it as experimental. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My point is just having experimental comment in header file is not > >>> enough to > >>>>>> qualify the APIs as experimental. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyway, we need to break the ABI to make it work on various HW. > >>> > >>> Yes this is why I was asking in 19.11 to check our API, > >>> in order to avoid such situation. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> I am not sure what to do? > >>> > >>> Either manage ABI versioning, or wait 20.11. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> IMO, We need to send a patch as Fixes: for the bug of not adding > >>>>>>> __rte_experimental in each function. > >>> > >>> No, this is wrong. > >>> > >> > >> Why exactly is this wrong? This is the gap that caused the current > >> discussion, right? > >> > > It's wrong for this release, since we can't change things from stable back > > to experimental. Any such patch will have to wait for 20.11, as agreed in > > the discussion. > > > > Deferring the patchet for this release. > > Reminder that if the option "to mark rte_tm_* as experimental in v20.11" > selected, requires deprecation notice before v20.11.
Thanks Ferruh for reminder. I'll send a deprecation notice patch for the same.
