On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:26 PM Naga Harish K, S V
<s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 4:24 PM
> > To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com>
> > Cc: jer...@marvell.com; Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>;
> > Gujjar,
> > Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eventdev/eth_rx: add params set/get APIs
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:02 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> > <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > + uint32_t rsvd[15];
> > > > > > > > > + /**< Reserved fields for future use */
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Introduce rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() to
> > > > make
> > > > > > > > sure rsvd is zero.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reserved fields are not used by the adapter or application.
> > > > > > > Not sure Is it necessary to Introduce a new API to clear reserved
> > fields.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When adapter starts using new fileds(when we add new fieds in
> > > > > > future), the old applicaiton which is not using
> > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() may have junk
> > > > > > value and then adapter implementation will behave bad.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > does it mean, the application doesn't re-compile for the new DPDK?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. No need recompile if ABI not breaking.
> > > >
> > > > > When some of the reserved fields are used in the future, the
> > > > > application
> > > > also may need to be recompiled along with DPDK right?
> > > > > As the application also may need to use the newly consumed
> > > > > reserved
> > > > fields?
> > > >
> > > > The problematic case is:
> > > >
> > > > Adapter implementation of 23.07(Assuming there is change params)
> > > > field needs to work with application of 23.03.
> > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() will sove that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() initializes only
> > reserved fields to zero, it may not solve the issue in this case.
> >
> > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() needs to zero all fields,
> > not just reserved field.
> > The application calling sequence is
> >
> > struct my_config c;
> > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init(&c)
> > c.interseted_filed_to_be_updated = val;
> >
> Can it be done like
> struct my_config c = {0};
> c.interseted_filed_to_be_updated = val;
> and update Doxygen comments to recommend above usage to reset all fields?
> This way, rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() can be avoided.
Better to have a function for documentation clarity. Similar scheme
already there
in DPDK. See rte_eth_cman_config_init()
>
> > Let me share an example and you can tell where is the issue
> >
> > 1)Assume parameter structure is 64B and for 22.03 8B are used.
> > 2)rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() will clear all 64B.
> > 3)There is an application written based on 22.03 which using only 8B after
> > calling rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init()
> > 4)Assume, in 22.07 another 8B added to structure.
> > 5)Now, the application (3) needs to run on 22.07. Since the application is
> > calling rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init()
> > and 9 to 15B are zero, the implementation will not go bad.
> >
> > > The old application only tries to set/get previous valid fields and the
> > > newly
> > used fields may still contain junk value.
> > > If the application wants to make use of any the newly used params, the
> > application changes are required anyway.
> >
> > Yes. If application wants to make use of newly added features. No need to
> > change if new features are not needed for old application.
