[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: promote some service core functions to stable
gage.eads at intel.com
Thu Jun 20 20:39:27 CEST 2019
> Gage Eads <gage.eads at intel.com> writes:
> > The functions rte_service_may_be_active(),
> > rte_service_lcore_attr_get(), and rte_service_attr_reset_all() were
> > introduced nearly a year ago in DPDK 18.08. They can be considered non-
> experimental for the 19.08 release.
> > rte_service_may_be_active() is used by eventdev and the sw PMD, and
> > this commit allows them to not need any experimental API.
> > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/event/sw/Makefile | 1 -
> > drivers/event/sw/meson.build | 1 -
> > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_service.h | 15 +++------------
> > lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 6 +++---
> > lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 6 +++---
> > lib/librte_eventdev/Makefile | 1 -
> > lib/librte_eventdev/meson.build | 1 -
> > 7 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > diff --git a/drivers/event/sw/Makefile b/drivers/event/sw/Makefile
> > index 81236a392..c6600e836 100644
> > --- a/drivers/event/sw/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/Makefile
> > @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk LIB =
> > librte_pmd_sw_event.a
> > # build flags
> > -CFLAGS += -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
> > CFLAGS += -O3
> > CFLAGS += $(WERROR_FLAGS)
> > # for older GCC versions, allow us to initialize an event using diff
> > --git a/drivers/event/sw/meson.build b/drivers/event/sw/meson.build
> > index 30d221647..985012219 100644
> > --- a/drivers/event/sw/meson.build
> > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/meson.build
> > @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
> > # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause # Copyright(c) 2017 Intel
> > Corporation
> > -allow_experimental_apis = true
> I don't think you can remove these. There are still some experimental APIs
> (f.e. the rename for rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data
> marked that function as experimental and it will cause build breakage).
> Maybe I'm mis understanding it? It would be good to get verification from
> Bruce whether that API should not be marked as experimental (it was just a
> rename, so not sure...) - maybe that's a follow up for this patch?
> See: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/209722145 for an example
> The odd thing is I only see it on the clang builds - perhaps it's a missing
> definition for the clang compiler.
You're right, eventdev still uses that experimental API (which this patch is unrelated to). I tested this change with GCC (5.4.0) and it built without errors, which I took to mean no more experimental APIs were in use. That's concerning that GCC didn't catch it.
At any rate, I'll correct this in v2.
More information about the dev