On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:03:43 +0000
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:43:35AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 14/02/2022 11:45, Bruce Richardson:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 14/02/2022 10:13, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > > > > while the driver api is "internal" we agreed some time ago that
> > > > > > drivers
> > > > > > could be built external to the dpdk tree. by enabling the meson
> > > > > > setup
> > > > > > option -Denable_driver_sdk=true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it was agreed that the driver api was internal and would attract no
> > > > > > binary compatibility support which was fine. this change has now
> > > > > > imposed a further restriction that out of tree drivers have to be
> > > > > > authored in C only as non-C++ compatible code will invariably leak
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > the internal structures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you won't allow us to build C++ drivers in the dpdk tree and it
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > now you are preventing building of C++ drivers outside of the tree
> > > > > > too.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the problem of non-written assumptions, they are unknown or
> > > > > forgotten.
> > > > > Did we agree to support out-of-tree drivers in C++?
> > > > >
> > > > > We really need to make things clear and written in documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > > could we please re-evaluate this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes we can re-evaluate.
> > > > > What is the list of impacted files?
> > > > >
> > > > Hacking meson files a bit, the list of SDK header files is reported as
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > /Bruce
> > > >
> > > > Message: SDK headers:
> > > > Message: ethdev_driver.h
> > > > Message: ethdev_pci.h
> > > > Message: ethdev_vdev.h
> > > > Message: cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > Message: eventdev_pmd.h
> > > > Message: eventdev_pmd_pci.h
> > > > Message: eventdev_pmd_vdev.h
> > > > Message: eventdev_trace.h
> > > > Message: event_timer_adapter_pmd.h
> > > > Message: rte_dmadev_pmd.h
> > > > Message: vdpa_driver.h
> > >
> > > I see no harm in supporting C++ include of these headers.
> > > Any objection?
> > >
> > > Could we have a test in chkincs for the SDK headers?
> > >
> > Yes. It may make things a little more complicated, though, as it seems
> > these headers also have a tendency to rely on some driver headers -
> > specifically bus driver headers.
> >
>
> Working on a patch to add these to checks. However, just running a c++
> compile does not check for valid 'extern "C"' blocks. Adding the following
> to chkincs/meson.build as a basic sanity check throws up a larger list of
> files to be looked at.
>
> Diff:
>
> +# check for extern C in files, since this is not detected as an error by the
> compiler
> +grep = find_program('grep', required: false)
> +if grep.found()
> + errlist = run_command([grep, '--files-without-match', '^extern "C"',
> dpdk_chkinc_headers],
> + check: true, capture: true).stdout().split()
> + if errlist != []
> + error('Files missing C++ \'extern "C"\' guards:\n- ' + '\n-
> '.join(errlist))
> + endif
> +endif
> +
>
> Output:
> ../buildtools/chkincs/meson.build:45:8: ERROR: Problem encountered: Files
> missing C++ 'extern "C"' guards:
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/telemetry/rte_telemetry.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_bitops.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_branch_prediction.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_compat.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_hypervisor.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_keepalive.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_pci_dev_features.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_time.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/linux/include/rte_os.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/rte_dev_info.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_pci.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_vdev.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/metrics/rte_metrics_telemetry.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/bpf/bpf_def.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/compressdev/rte_compressdev_internal.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/cryptodev/cryptodev_pmd.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/rte_event_ring.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd_pci.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd_vdev.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/kni/rte_kni_common.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vdpa.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vhost_async.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vhost_crypto.h
> - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/vdpa_driver.h
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
The actual C++ guards are small and have no impact therefore we
should accept patches as needed. Having more guards than needed is
just noise.
But the responsibility of telling DPDK project where they are required
should fall to any out-of-tree users who care.
