[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/mlx: version rdma-core glue libraries

Van Haaren, Harry harry.van.haaren at intel.com
Mon Feb 5 13:24:23 CET 2018


> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:14 PM
> To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; Shahaf Shuler
> <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/mlx: version rdma-core glue
> libraries
> 
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 03:29:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 02/02/2018 17:46, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile
> > > > @@ -33,7 +33,9 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk
> > > >
> > > >  # Library name.
> > > >  LIB = librte_pmd_mlx4.a
> > > > -LIB_GLUE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so
> > > > +LIB_GLUE = $(LIB_GLUE_BASE).$(LIB_GLUE_VERSION)
> > > > +LIB_GLUE_BASE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so
> > > > +LIB_GLUE_VERSION = 18.02.1
> > >
> > > You should use the version number of the release, i.e. 18.02.0
> > > Ideally, you should retrieve it from rte_version.h.
> >
> > Keep in mind this only needs to be updated when the glue API gets
> modified,
> > and this "18.02.1" string may remain unmodified for subsequent DPDK
> > releases, probably as long as the PMD doesn't use any new rdma-core calls.
> >
> > We've already backported this patch to 17.02 and 17.11, both requiring
> > different sets of Verbs calls and thus a different version, hence the
> added
> > "18.02" as a starting point. The last digit may have to be modified
> possibly
> > several times between official DPDK releases while work is being done on
> the
> > PMD (i.e. per commit).
> >
> > In short it's not meant to follow DPDK's public versioning scheme. If you
> > really think it should, doing so will make things more complex in the
> > Makefile, which will have to parse rte_version.h. What's your opinion?
> 
> What about appending date +%s output to it? It would be stricter and
> automated.

Adding current timestamp or date into a build breaks reproducibility of builds, so is
generally not recommended.

No opinion on string/version naming here.


More information about the dev mailing list