[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv4 0/4] dpdk: enhance EXPERIMENTAL api tagging

Bruce Richardson bruce.richardson at intel.com
Wed Dec 13 16:32:38 CET 2017


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:17:23AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> Hey all-
>         A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches I
> would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe
> because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set.  John M. asked me then what
> I might do to improve the situation, and the following patch set is a proposal
> that I've come up with.
> 
>         In thinking about the problem I identified two issues that I think we
> can improve on in this area:
> 
> 1) Make experimental api calls more visible in the source code.  That is to say,
> when reviewing patches, it would be nice to have some sort of visual reference
> that indicates that the changes being made are part of an experimental API and
> therefore ABI concerns need not be addressed
> 
> 2) Make experimenal api usage more visible to consumers of the DPDK, so that
> they can make a more informed decision about the API's they consume in their
> application.  We make an effort to document all the experimental API's, but
> there is no guarantee that a user will check the documentation before making use
> of a new library.
> 
> This patch set attempts to achieve both of the above goals.  To do this I've
> added an __experimental macro tag, suitable for inserting into api forward
> declarations and definitions.
> 
> The presence of the tag in the header and c files where the api code resides
> increases the likelyhood that any patch submitted against them will include the
> tag in the context, making it clear to reviewers that ABI stability isn't a
> concern here.
> 
> Also, This tag marks each function it is used on with an attibute causing any
> use of the fuction to emit a warning during the build
> with a message indicating that the API call in question is not yet part of the
> stable interface.  Developers can then make an informed decision to suppress
> that warning or not.
> 
> Because there is internal use of several experimental API's, this set also
> includes a new override macro ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_APIS to automatically
> suprress these warnings.  I think its fair to assume that, for internal use, we
> almost always want to suppress these warnings, as by definition any change to
> the apis (even their removal) must be done in parallel with an appropriate
> change in the calling locations, lest the dpdk build itself break.
> 
> Neil
> 
> ---
> Change Notes:
> v2)
> * Cleaned up checkpatch errors
> * Added Allowance for building experimental on BSD
> * Swapped Patch 3 and 4 so that we didn't have a commit level that issued
>   warnings/errors without need
> 
> v3)
> * On suggestion from Bruce, modify ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_APIS to be defined in
>   CFLAGS rather than a makefile variable.  This is more flexible in that it
>   allows us to suppress this specific feature rather than all uses of the
>   deprecated attribute, as we might use it for other features in the furute
> 
> v4)
> * Added documentation patch to contributors guide
> 

Series Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>



More information about the dev mailing list