> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 5:25 PM
>
> Hi Morten,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57:38AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
>
> > The MBUF library exposes some macros and constants without the RTE_
> prefix. I
> > propose cleaning up these, so better names get into the coming LTS
> release.
>
> Yes, Thomas talked about it some time ago and he even drafted a patch
> to
> fix it. We can target 20.11 for the changes, but I think we'll have to
> keep a compat API until 21.11.
>
Great, then I will back off. No need for multiple patches fixing the same
things. :-)
And I agree with all your feedback... although I do consider the mbuf port_id
so much at the core of DPDK that I suggested RTE_PORT_INVALID over
RTE_MBUF_PORT_INVALID, but I don't feel strongly about it. Whatever you and
Thomas prefer is probably fine.
> > The worst is:
> > #define MBUF_INVALID_PORT UINT16_MAX
> >
> > I say it's the worst because when we were looking for the official
> "invalid"
> > port value for our application, we didn't find this one. (Probably
> because its
> > documentation is wrong.)
> >
> > MBUF_INVALID_PORT is defined in rte_mbuf_core.h without any
> description, and
> > in rte_mbuf.h, where it is injected between the rte_pktmbuf_reset()
> function
> > and its description, so the API documentation shows the function's
> description
> > for the constant, and no description for the function.
>
> The one in rte_mbuf_core.h should be kept, with a documentation.
>
> > I propose keeping it at a sensible location in rte_mbuf_core.h only,
> adding a description, and renaming it to:
> > #define RTE_PORT_INVALID UINT16_MAX
>
> I suggest RTE_MBUF_PORT_INVALID
>
> > For backwards compatibility, we could add:
> > /* this old name is deprecated */
> > #define MBUF_INVALID_PORT RTE_PORT_INVALID
> >
> > I also wonder why there are no compiler warnings about the double
> definition?
>
> If the value is the same, the compiler won't complain.
>
> > There are also the data buffer location constants:
> > #define EXT_ATTACHED_MBUF (1ULL << 61)
> > and
> > #define IND_ATTACHED_MBUF (1ULL << 62)
> >
> >
> > There are already macros (with good names) for reading these, so
> > simply adding the RTE_ prefix to these two constants suffices.
>
> Some applications use it, we also need a compat here.
>
> > And all the packet offload flags, such as:
> > #define PKT_RX_VLAN (1ULL << 0)
> >
> >
> > They are supposed to be used by applications, so I guess we should
> > keep them unchanged for ABI stability reasons.
>
> I propose RTE_MBUF_F_<name> for the mbuf flags.
>
> > And the local macro:
> > #define MBUF_RAW_ALLOC_CHECK(m) do { \
> >
> > This might as well be an internal inline function:
> > /* internal */
> > static inline void
> > __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_check(const struct rte_mbuf *m)
> >
>
> agree, I don't think a macro is mandatory here
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
>
> > Or we could keep it a macro and move it next to
> > __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(), keeping it clear that it is only relevant
> when
> > RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG is set. But rename it to lower case, similar to
> the
> > __rte_mbuf_sanity_check() macro.
> >
> >
> > Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
> > - Morten Brørup
> >
