On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/1/2020 2:16 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > > 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. > > > > Hi Nithin Kumar, Cristian, Jerin, > > Who is working on updating APIs as experimental? We need that patch to proceed > with this one.
Hi Ferruh, I'll send out a patch marking all TM API's experimental.
