On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 09-May-19 8:05 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:11 AM Stephen Hemminger > > <step...@networkplumber.org <mailto:step...@networkplumber.org>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:48:06 -0500 > > Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com > > <mailto:erik.g.carri...@intel.com>> wrote: > > > > > Due to an upcoming fix to allow the timer library to safely free its > > > allocations during the finalize() call[1], an ABI change will be > > > required. A new lock will be added to the rte_mem_config structure, > > > which will be used by the timer library to synchronize init/finalize > > > calls among multiple processes. > > > > > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/53334/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com > > <mailto:erik.g.carri...@intel.com>> > > > --- > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > index b47c8c2..7551383 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Deprecation Notices > > > > > > + ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count`` > > > > > > +* eal: the ``rte_mem_config`` struct will change to include a > > new lock that > > > + will allow the timer subsystem to safely release its > > allocations at cleanup > > > + time. This will result in an ABI break. > > > + > > > * vfio: removal of ``rte_vfio_dma_map`` and > > ``rte_vfio_dma_unmap`` APIs which > > > have been replaced with ``rte_dev_dma_map`` and > > ``rte_dev_dma_unmap`` > > > functions. The due date for the removal targets DPDK 20.02. > > > > NAK > > > > Please go to the effort of making rte_mem_config not part of the > > visible ABI. > > Then change it. > > > > > > +1. > > I agree on principle, however this won't solve the issue. It doesn't need to > be externally visible, but that's not all of its problems - it's also shared > between processes so there's an ABI contract between primary and secondary > too. This means that, even if the structure itself is not public, any > changes to it will still result in an ABI break. That's the nature of our > shared memory. > > In other words, if your goal is to avoid ABI breaks on changing this > structure, making it internal won't help in the slightest. >
Is there an ABI contract between primary and secondary. I always assumed that if using secondary processes the requirement (though undocumented) was that both had to be linked against the exact same versions of DPDK?
