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

Marcelo Ricardo Leitner mleitner at redhat.com
Mon Feb 5 16:29:42 CET 2018


On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:37:34PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 05/02/2018 14:44, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:58:06AM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:23PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then the sha1sum of mlx4_glue.h.
> > > > > With this the size check I mentioned on the other patch would become
> > > > > redundant and unnecessary.
> > > > 
> > > > Using a strong hash algorithm to version a library/symbol, while possible,
> > > > seems a bit overkill and results in ugliness:
> > > > 
> > > >  librte_pmd_mlx4.so.c4ca4eaf2fe975ead83453458f4f56db49e724f3
> > 
> > Ugh yes, but it wouldn't need to be that visible. A pointer on
> > mlx*_glue and a define on PMD would be enough already. As in, an
> > extended check to the versioning.
> 
> I thought you suggested this as a replacement. I'm not sure we need or want
> to go this far. The current string comparison is really not worse than
> standard symbol versioning, which doesn't check symbol properties besides
> whether they are functions or other objects. We could have used C++ with
> automatically mangled symbol names for that, however that again would make
> things way more complex than necessary.
> 
> > > > Using a weak one like CRC32 for a shorter name poses a risk of
> > > > collision. Moreover the next time someone decides to update all version
> > > > notices or modify a comment will impact that hash. We'd need to isolate the
> > > > symbol definition itself, ignore parameter names in function prototypes and
> > > > only then we may get a somewhat meaningful hash describing a given ABI.
> > 
> > That's what I meant with stricter. Yes it would catch such
> > situations, but you tell me on how much we want to protect/restrict
> > here.  Do you see a reason for building only the dpdk/pmd side and not
> > the glue library at a time?
> 
> No, they're always built together. We're only adding this versioning to
> avoid issues when users somehow end up with several DPDK versions installed
> on their system, or with leftovers of previous releases lying around. That's
> all we need to solve here. dlopen()'ing the proper file takes care of that,
> the symbol version number check afterward is performed just in case.

Interesting. These leftovers probably wouldn't be there if it wasn't
versioned in the first place. :-)

> 
> > > > Given the added complexity, is there really a problem with simple version
> > > > numbers we increment every time something gets modified? (Note this is
> > > > already how our .map files work, they're not generated automatically)
> > > 
> > > Our map files show the major version where a symbol was introduced.
> > > It is simple because no symbol can be introduced in a minor version.
> > > 
> > > > How about keeping things as is?
> > 
> > I don't really see the need of unique filenames. The next patch is
> > already leveraging RTE_EAL_PMD_PATH, which if versioned should be
> > enough for this, no?
> 
> As you said, "if" versioned. As an undocumented empty string by default,
> there's no way to be sure. Leaving the PMD version its internal but
> (unfortunately) exposed bits will certainly prevent mistakes.
> 
> > > You are using 18.02.1 while it is introduced in 18.02.0.
> > > If you don't want to correlate the .so version number with DPDK version
> > > number, maybe that 1, 2, 3 would be a simpler choice (less confusing).
> > 
> > +1
> 
> Then are you fine with the "18.02.0" suffix?

Not really, sorry. It was more for the "1, 2, 3" sequence or tying it
to dpdk version.

With the latest replies, I don't think the reasoning is enough to
justify these extra checks, but I won't oppose to including it.

  Marcelo


More information about the dev mailing list