[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: accept user flags only

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 10/18/21 11:58 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:37:32AM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 10/18/21 11:26 AM, David Marchand wrote:
>>> As reported by Dmitry, MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED is a flag only manipulated
>>> internally.
>>> This flag is not supposed to be requested from an application and would
>>> probably result in an incorrect behavior if an application did pass it.
>>>
>>> Other internal flags may be introduced later.
>>>
>>> Rework the check and export a mask of valid user flags for use in the
>>> unit test.
>>>
>>> Fixes: b240af8b10f9 ("mempool: enforce valid flags at creation")
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk at nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> 
> (...)
> 
>>> --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
>>> +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
>>> @@ -258,6 +258,15 @@ struct rte_mempool {
>>>  #define MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED   0x0010 /**< Internal: pool is created. */
>>>  #define MEMPOOL_F_NO_IOVA_CONTIG 0x0020 /**< Don't need IOVA contiguous objs. */
>>>  
>>> +/**
>>> + * This macro lists all the mempool flags an application may request.
>>> + */
>>> +#define MEMPOOL_VALID_USER_FLAGS (MEMPOOL_F_NO_SPREAD \
>>
>> I think RTE_ prefix is missing here since it is in a public
>> header now.
> 
> I discussed about this offline with David. I was ok to omit the
> RTE_ prefix for consistency.
> 
>>> +	| MEMPOOL_F_NO_CACHE_ALIGN \
>>> +	| MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT \
>>> +	| MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET \
>>> +	| MEMPOOL_F_NO_IOVA_CONTIG \
>>> +	)
>>>  /**
>>>   * @internal When debug is enabled, store some statistics.
>>>   *
>>>
>>
>> Should we make a patch to add defines with RTE_ prefix and
>> add a deprecation for old flags without RTE_ prefix?
>>
>> Olivier, what do you think? If you have time to care about it,
>> it would be great. (I'm unfamiliar with coccinelle yet).
> 
> I was joking with David about keeping some work for 2022 :)
> 
> I will try to have a look. As a side note, I was not that convinced by
> coccinelle for simple replacements like this, because it does not
> update the comments or documentation, it can (rarely) break the
> indentation, it is slow, and the syntax is quite complex.
> 

I dreamed to finish with renanamings in core libraries in 2021.
May be it is to naive :(

I see that rc1 is already delayed and adding a couple of
more patches could delay it even more. I'm ready to do it
without coccinelle today, so, it is a question to @Thomas and
@David if that late patch will be considered at all.