On 9/7/2020 12:12 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 5/1/2020 2:16 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: >>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:27:02AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> External Email >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> On 4/29/2020 10:03 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:45:44AM +0100, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:54 PM >>>>>>> To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; Dumitrescu, Cristian >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; Luca Boccassi <[email protected]>; Nithin >>>>>>> Dabilpuram <[email protected]>; Singh, Jasvinder >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>>>>> [email protected]; Nithin Dabilpuram <[email protected]>; >>>>>>> Kinsella, Ray <[email protected]>; Neil Horman >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; David >>>>>>> Marchand <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add tm support for shaper >>>>>>> config in pkt mode >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 28/04/2020 17:04, Luca Boccassi: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 15:45 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:59 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Ferruh Yigit >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:29 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:42 PM Ferruh Yigit >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 10:19 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2020 11:28 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Nithin Dabilpuram <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch also updates tm port/level/node capability >>>>>>> structures with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exiting features of scheduler wfq packet mode, >>>>>>> scheduler wfq byte mode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and private/shared shaper byte mode. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SoftNIC PMD is also updated with new capabilities. >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Nithin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like patch is causing ABI break, I am getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>> warning [1], >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please check? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pastebin.com_XYNFg14u&d=DwIDaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=ej5sP3-cEhEoCTZOia-QivXqgljtzBcMLtZGs-5c-Uc&s=B8z_5mQ2xO3C1izjmRe2zBApMrCUcW6KcAN-adglhJQ&e= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The RTE_TM API is marked as experimental, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it looks that this was not correctly marked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when __rte_experimental ABI checker was introduced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is marked as experimental at the top of the rte_tm.h, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to other APIs introduced around same time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it was not correctly picked up by the ABI check procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when later introduced, so __rte_experimental was not added >>>>>>> to every function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it time to mature them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said they are not marked as experimental both in header >>>>>>> file (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations) and .map file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, they are not marked as experimental in >>>>>>> DPDK_20.0 ABI (v19.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so marking them as experimental now will break the ABI. Not >>>>>>> sure what to do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc'ed a few ABI related names for comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, we need to proceed as the experimental tag removed >>>>>>> and APIs become >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature starting from v19.11, since this is what happened in >>>>>>> practice, and remove >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few existing being experimental references in the doxygen >>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, accidentally we can not make a library as NON- >>>>>>> experimental. >>>>>>>>>>>>> TM never went through experimental to mature transition(see git >>>>>>> log >>>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_tm.h) >>>>>>>>>>>>> It was a bug to not mark as experimental in each function in the >>>>>>> ABI process. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the features like packet marking are not even >>>>>>> implemented by any HW. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, we can make API stable only all the features are >>>>>>> implemented >>>>>>>>>>>>> by one or two HW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes this is what was decided one or two years ago I think. >>>>>>> But rte_tm API was introduced 3 years ago and is implemented by 6 PMDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, specially if the API is not ready yet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But they were part of stable ABI, and marking them as experimental >>>>>>> now will >>>>>>>>>>>> break the old applications using these APIs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it is still marked as EXPERIMENTAL everywhere and API is not ready >>>>>>> yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rte_tm is implemented in 6 PMDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Existing experimental marks are text only for human parsing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The compiler attribute and build time checks are missing, and the >>>>>>> symbol in the >>>>>>>>>> binary doesn't have experimental tag. Our scripts and automated >>>>>>> checks won't >>>>>>>>>> detect it as experimental. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My point is just having experimental comment in header file is not >>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>>> qualify the APIs as experimental. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, we need to break the ABI to make it work on various HW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes this is why I was asking in 19.11 to check our API, >>>>>>> in order to avoid such situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what to do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Either manage ABI versioning, or wait 20.11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IMO, We need to send a patch as Fixes: for the bug of not adding >>>>>>>>>>> __rte_experimental in each function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, this is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why exactly is this wrong? This is the gap that caused the current >>>>>> discussion, right? >>>>>> >>>>> It's wrong for this release, since we can't change things from stable back >>>>> to experimental. Any such patch will have to wait for 20.11, as agreed in >>>>> the discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Deferring the patchet for this release. >>>> >>>> Reminder that if the option "to mark rte_tm_* as experimental in v20.11" >>>> selected, requires deprecation notice before v20.11. >>> >>> Thanks Ferruh for reminder. I'll send a deprecation notice patch for the >>> same. >>> >> >> Hi Nithin Kumar, Cristian, Jerin, >> >> Who is working on updating APIs as experimental? We need that patch to >> proceed >> with this one. > > Hi Ferruh, > > I'll send out a patch marking all TM API's experimental. >
The experimental API change is done & applied, hence for this series: Series applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
