[EXT] [PATCH v7 6/7] bbdev: add queue related warning and status information

[Maxime Coquelin]

Hi Nic,

On 9/29/22 21:48, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> In absence of Ray (I did not see email from him for a some time) can you please advise on best option so that as to move on.
> I can either keep as is based on initial review with Ray, or replace _PADDED_MAX to _SIZE_MAX macro as suggested by Ferruh.
> I am happy either way as long as we are able to move forward. There is no full consensus but not strong opinion either from anyone.

I would go with Ferruh's suggestion.

Regards,
Maxime

> Thanks,
> Nic
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil at marvell.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 11:33 AM
>> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>; Chautru, Nicolas
>> <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Maxime Coquelin
>> <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>; ferruh.yigit at xilinx.com; Ray Kinsella
>> <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>> Cc: thomas at monjalon.net; trix at redhat.com; Richardson, Bruce
>> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; david.marchand at redhat.com;
>> stephen at networkplumber.org; Zhang, Mingshan
>> <mingshan.zhang at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com
>> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v7 6/7] bbdev: add queue related warning and status
>> information
>>
>>>> Thanks for your comment.
>>>> To be totally honest I don't yet see how your suggestion would be
>>>> better, but I
>>> quite possibly miss something. I did not reply in line with your
>>> comments so that to try to be clearer and avoid spreading the argument
>>> to much. Ray and Bruce feel free to chime in as well.
>>>>
>>>> First to state the obvious: Nothing will change the fact that in
>>>> case new enums
>>> are being added in DPDK, and if the application doesn't change, then
>>> user would not be able to interpret any such additional
>>> status/capability (backward compatible only feature parity and still
>>> ABI compliant) which is totally accepted as fine and up to the user,
>>> but the intention is at least not to have adverse effect even when
>>> they don’t update their code for such new features (notably in case
>>> they just use an older PMD not supporting such new features as a basic
>> typical example in the ecosystem). I think we agree on that problematic.
>>>>
>>>> In term of history of not using MAX value for enum, I believe there
>>>> is already
>>> well documented and you agree with the reasoning of why we had to move
>>> away from this [1]. Not just cosmetically where the max value is
>>> called an enum or a #define but to have application making hardcoded
>>> assumption on the possible maximum range for such enum notably when
>>> sizing array. The only caveat being that at the time, the community
>>> did spot the weakness but did not come to an agreement with regards to
>>> the best way to manage this moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> In case your point is purely cosmetic to rename the PADDED_MAX value
>>>> from
>>> the enum to a #define (both public) I don't see how this would make
>>> thing clearer by obfuscating the fact it is genuinely a padded value
>>> and to have that value directly related to the enum structure. Also
>>> note that there is already an actual max value defined for these enums
>>> (but kept private on purpose) which is used by the lib/bbdev functions
>>> to restrict usage to what is actually supported in the given implementation
>> (distinct from padded max value).
>>>>
>>>> Arguably the only concern I could understand in your message would
>>>> be this
>>> one " my concern was if user assumes all values valid until PADDED_MAX
>>> and tries to iterate array until that value".
>>>> But really the fact that it is indeed a padded value implies fairly
>>>> explicitly that
>>> we have padded the supported enums with placeholders enums not yet
>> defined.
>>> That is fairly tautological! I cannot see how it could confuse anyone.
>>> That is indeed to avoid such confusion that we went on that direction
>>> to expose a public future-proof padded maximum value.
>>>>
>>>> Then looking at usage in practice: when integrating the bbdev api
>>>> with higher
>>> level SW stacks (such as FlexRAN reference sw or 3rd party stacks) I
>>> don’t see how any of this theoretical concerns you raised would be
>>> relevant for any of these very cases (enqueue status, new capability
>>> etc...). The only genuine concern was sizing array based on MAX value being
>> not ABI compliant.
>>>> I cannot think of any code in the application presently deployed or
>>>> future that
>>> would then do what you are concerned about and cause an issue, and we
>>> definitely don’t do such things in any example for bbdev-test or in
>>> FlexRAN reference code provided to the ecosystem. The application
>>> would already have a default case when an enum being provided has no
>>> matching application, or more accurately in practice they would purely
>>> not look for these and hence these would be ignored seamlessly.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for the discussion. I wish this had happened earlier
>>>> (we only
>>> discussed this with Ray and Bruce while you were still at Intel), let
>>> me know what you think.
>>>> It may be more generally good moving forward to come to a general
>>> agreement at your technical forum level to avoid confusion. When we
>>> discussed earlier we came to the conclusion that the DPDK community
>>> had well documented what not to do to avoid ABI breakage but not
>>> necessarily what are the best alternatives.
>>>> Hopefully such future discussion should not delay this serie to be
>>>> applied but
>>> still let me know.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Nic,
>>>
>>> I believe it is more clear/safe to convert to SIZE_MAX macros,
>>> although it is not a blocker.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am not sure about the value of continuing this discussion,
>>> perhaps it is better to clarify the guidance for similar case with ABI
>>> maintainer and techboard, so it can proceed according to the decision.
>>>
>> I agree with Ferruh's comment for converting to SIZE_MAX macros.
>> However, it is not a strong comment from my side.
>> Moving to techboard would mean this patchset would skip the RC1 window.
>> I believe as Ray is the maintainer and go to person for ABI related issues.
>> I believe if he can take a look at the suggestion and provide ack/nack to
>> whichever Approach would be fine and we can go ahead in that direction.
>> I would like to close this as soon as possible. There are a lot of patches to be
>> blocked on this series.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akhil
>