On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 05:12:02PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 1:09 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > 03/06/2022 16:36, Kevin Laatz: > > > During EAL init, all buses are probed and the devices found are > > > initialized. On eal_cleanup(), the inverse does not happen, meaning any > > > allocated memory and other configuration will not be cleaned up > > > appropriately on exit. > > [...] > > > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore > > > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore > > > @@ -56,3 +56,12 @@ > > > ; Ignore libabigail false-positive in clang builds, after moving code. > > > [suppress_function] > > > name = rte_eal_remote_launch > > > + > > > +; Ignore field inserted to rte_bus, adding cleanup function > > > +[suppress_type] > > > + name = rte_bus > > > + has_data_member_inserted_at = end > > > + > > > +; Ignore changes to internally used structs containing rte_bus > > > +[suppress_type] > > > + name = rte_pci_bus, rte_vmbus_bus, rte_vdev_bus > > (This change is strange as there is no rte_vdev_bus type, but I won't > investigate the relevance of this rule for now). > > > > > I'm not sure we can safely consider these structs as internal. > > The right process is to send a deprecation notice, > > and then remove them from the public API. > > Same for me, I don't think we can safely ignore. > > A rte_bus struct is embedded in rte_pci_bus (resp. rte_vmbus_bus). > If we make it grow, any inlined access (like walk in device_list or > driver_list) after the rte_bus object is broken for code accessing it > out of DPDK. > Such code might exist out there, since we expose > FOREACH_DEVICE_ON_PCIBUS, for example. > > > > > > For info, Li has sent a patch for the bus cleanup > > which is not updating the bus code: > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220606114650.209612-3-l...@nvidia.com/ > > It may be a temporary solution before the deprecation. > > On the principle, that's probably the best, there is no question about > unclear frontier of the ABI. > (In practice though, the mentionned patch is triggering segfaults in > two CI, for pdump). > > Hiding rte_bus object should be straightforward in v22.11, I had some > patches, but never finished the work. > > It would be great too, to look into rte_driver and rte_device which > are exposed important types, but that's another story. > Agreed, we need to look into all this for 22.11 release, let's defer this patch until we get proper deprecation process. Temporary patch looks fine as a fix too.
/Bruce
