[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol check when map file under drivers
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Wed May 22 12:50:56 CEST 2019
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:54AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:57 AM
> > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; thomas at monjalon.net; stable at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: skip the symbol check when
> > map file under drivers
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:26:28AM +0530, jerinj at marvell.com wrote:
> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinj at marvell.com>
> > >
> > > Drivers do not have ABI.
> > > Skip the symbol check if map file under drivers directory.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 4bec48184e33 ("devtools: add checks for ABI symbol addition")
> > >
> > > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
> > >
> > Sorry, but I'm not ok with this, because many of our DPDK PMDs have functions
> > that get exported which are meant to be called by applications directly. The
> OK. Just to update my knowledge, Should those API needs to go through ABI/API
> depreciation process?
> Actually, I am concerned about the APIs, which is called between drviers not
> the application. For example,
> it is not interface to application rather it is for intra driver case.
> I think, I can change my logic to Skip the symbols which NOT starting with rte_.
> I am adding a new driver/common/octeontx2 directory and it has some API which
> Needs to shared between drivers not to the application. For me, it does not make
> sense to go through any ABI process in such case.
Maybe not, but other drivers will have APIs designed for apps to call
directly - some NIC drivers have them, and I suspect that rawdev drivers
will need them a lot. Therefore, it's best to have the drivers directory
scanned by our tooling.
More information about the dev