> -----Original Message----- > From: Pattan, Reshma > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:55 PM > To: Tan, Jianfeng; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] pdump: change to use generic multi-process channel > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tan, Jianfeng > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:28 AM > > To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] pdump: change to use generic multi-process channel > > > > Hi, > > > > 1) I feel ABI breakage has to be addressed first for change in > > rte_pdump_init() . > > > 2)ABI notice for removal of the rte_pdump_set_socket_dir() and then > > remove it completely . > > > > This patch itself does not break any ABI. It just puts parameters of > > rte_pdump_init() not used. And make rte_pdump_set_socket_dir() as a > > dummy function. > > > > So, for current release you just mark parameters unused and functions set to > dummy, in future release you announce > ABI breakage by removing them completely? If that is agreed plan I don't > have any issues.
Actually, as you commented, we can announce the deprecation with this patch. > > > > 3)Need to do cleanup of the code app/dpdk-pdump. > > > > Yes, I understand it's a normal process to announce deprecation firstly, and > > then do the change. > > > > But here is the thing, with generic mp introduced, we will not be > compatible > > with DPDK versions. > > So we want to unify the use of generic mp channel in this release for vfio, > > pdump, vdev, memory rework. > > And in fact, ABI/API changes could be delayed to later releases. > > So, you want to remove unnecessary socket related code from dpdk-pdump > in future release itself? Kind of making sense. > But dpdk-pdump tool has socket path related command line options which > user still can pass on, isn't it kind of confusion we creating w.r.t > Internal design and usage? AFAIK, these options do not affect anything with this patch even they are set. How about printing a warning saying that these options will be deprecated and take no effect now? I'll send a v2 for your review. Thanks, Jianfeng > > > > > > 4)After all the changes we need to make sure dpdk-pdump works fine > > > without breaking the functionality, validation team should be able to > > > help. > > > > I have done a simple test of pdump. Can you suggest where can I get the > > comprehensive test cases? > > > > Ok, if you have verified and observed packets are been captured successfully, > that is good enough. > > Thanks, > Reshma
