14/02/2022 18:t24, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:03:43 +0000
> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:43:35AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 14/02/2022 11:45, Bruce Richardson:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > > 14/02/2022 10:13, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > > > > > while the driver api is "internal" we agreed some time ago that
> > > > > > > drivers
> > > > > > > could be built external to the dpdk tree. by enabling the meson
> > > > > > > setup
> > > > > > > option -Denable_driver_sdk=true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it was agreed that the driver api was internal and would attract
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > binary compatibility support which was fine. this change has now
> > > > > > > imposed a further restriction that out of tree drivers have to be
> > > > > > > authored in C only as non-C++ compatible code will invariably
> > > > > > > leak into
> > > > > > > the internal structures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you won't allow us to build C++ drivers in the dpdk tree and it
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > now you are preventing building of C++ drivers outside of the
> > > > > > > tree too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the problem of non-written assumptions, they are unknown or
> > > > > > forgotten.
> > > > > > Did we agree to support out-of-tree drivers in C++?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We really need to make things clear and written in documentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > could we please re-evaluate this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes we can re-evaluate.
> > > > > > What is the list of impacted files?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hacking meson files a bit, the list of SDK header files is reported
> > > > > as below.
> > > > >
> > > > > /Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > > Message: SDK headers:
> > > > > Message: ethdev_driver.h
> > > > > Message: ethdev_pci.h
> > > > > Message: ethdev_vdev.h
> > > > > Message: cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > > Message: eventdev_pmd.h
> > > > > Message: eventdev_pmd_pci.h
> > > > > Message: eventdev_pmd_vdev.h
> > > > > Message: eventdev_trace.h
> > > > > Message: event_timer_adapter_pmd.h
> > > > > Message: rte_dmadev_pmd.h
> > > > > Message: vdpa_driver.h
> > > >
> > > > I see no harm in supporting C++ include of these headers.
> > > > Any objection?
> > > >
> > > > Could we have a test in chkincs for the SDK headers?
> > > >
> > > Yes. It may make things a little more complicated, though, as it seems
> > > these headers also have a tendency to rely on some driver headers -
> > > specifically bus driver headers.
> > >
> >
> > Working on a patch to add these to checks. However, just running a c++
> > compile does not check for valid 'extern "C"' blocks. Adding the following
> > to chkincs/meson.build as a basic sanity check throws up a larger list of
> > files to be looked at.
> >
> > Diff:
> >
> > +# check for extern C in files, since this is not detected as an error by
> > the compiler
> > +grep = find_program('grep', required: false)
> > +if grep.found()
> > + errlist = run_command([grep, '--files-without-match', '^extern "C"',
> > dpdk_chkinc_headers],
> > + check: true, capture: true).stdout().split()
> > + if errlist != []
> > + error('Files missing C++ \'extern "C"\' guards:\n- ' + '\n-
> > '.join(errlist))
> > + endif
> > +endif
> > +
> >
> > Output:
> > ../buildtools/chkincs/meson.build:45:8: ERROR: Problem encountered: Files
> > missing C++ 'extern "C"' guards:
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/telemetry/rte_telemetry.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_bitops.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_branch_prediction.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_compat.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_hypervisor.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_keepalive.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_pci_dev_features.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_time.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eal/linux/include/rte_os.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/rte_dev_info.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_pci.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/ethdev/ethdev_vdev.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/metrics/rte_metrics_telemetry.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/bpf/bpf_def.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/compressdev/rte_compressdev_internal.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/cryptodev/cryptodev_pmd.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/rte_event_ring.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd_pci.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/eventdev/eventdev_pmd_vdev.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/kni/rte_kni_common.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vdpa.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vhost_async.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/rte_vhost_crypto.h
> > - /home/bruce/dpdk.org/lib/vhost/vdpa_driver.h
> >
> > Regards,
> > /Bruce
>
> The actual C++ guards are small and have no impact therefore we
> should accept patches as needed. Having more guards than needed is
> just noise.
>
> But the responsibility of telling DPDK project where they are required
> should fall to any out-of-tree users who care.
Sorry Stephen I don't understand.
Please could you rephrase your comment?
