[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
jerinj at marvell.com
Thu Jun 6 18:23:26 CEST 2019
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:57 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>
> Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:14:42PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> ><snip as this is getting long>
> > I don't have any strong opinion on name prefix vs marking as
> > Or combination of both. I am fine any approach.
> > I have only strong option on not to induce objdump dependency for
> > For the reason mentioned in http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-
> Sorry, in my haste I didn't fully adress this in your previous email
> I'm really uncertain what you mean by introducing a checkpatch dependency
> on objdump here. Theres nothing preventing you from running checkpatch
> before you build the library. The only thing checkpatch does in dpdk is scan
> the patches for sytle violations, and for changes in the map file for
> movement to and from the EXPERIMENTAL section (i.e. no use of objdump).
> My patch modifies check-experimental-syms.sh (adding an objdump scan for
> INTERNAL symbols, and renaming the script to check-special-syms.sh to be
> more meaningful). That script however, is not run by checkpatch, its run
> during compilation of the library to ensure that any symbol in a map file is
> also tagged with __rte_internal in the corresponding object). Theres no path
> from checkpatches to check-experimental-syms.sh
> What I meant in my last comment was that any dependency on objdump in
> check-[experimental|special]-syms.sh already existed prior to this patch.
I see. I thought your patches addressing issue related to
Where checkpatch.sh complaints when we add new internal driver API with
out rte_experimental? That's where all the discussion started.
The reason why I was saying the API name prefix to mark as internal API is
that checkpatch can detect that case.
ERROR: symbol otx2_mbox_alloc_msg_rsp is added in the DPDK_19.05 section, but is expected to be added in the EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map
> So I'm unsure why you think checkpatches has a dependency.
More information about the dev