[dpdk-dev] rte_ring features in use (or not)
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Tue Jan 31 12:41:42 CET 2017
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:53:49AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:29:18 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > Bonus question:
> > > > > * Do we know how widely used the enq_bulk/deq_bulk functions
> > > > > are? They are useful for unit tests, so they do have uses, but
> > > > > I think it would be good if we harmonized the return values
> > > > > between bulk and burst functions. Right now:
> > > > > enq_bulk - only enqueues all elements or none. Returns 0
> > > > > for all, or negative error for none.
> > > > > enq_burst - enqueues as many elements as possible. Returns
> > > > > the number enqueued.
> > > >
> > > > I do use the apis in pktgen and the difference in return values
> > > > has got me once. Making them common would be great, but the
> > > > problem is
> > > backward compat to old versions I would need to have an ifdef in
> > > pktgen now. So it seems like we moved the problem to the
> > > application.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, an ifdef would be needed, but how many versions of DPDK back
> > > do you support? Could the ifdef be removed again after say, 6
> > > months?
> > > > I would like to see the old API kept and a new API with the new
> > > > behavior. I know it adds another API but one of the API would be
> > > > nothing
> > > more than wrapper function if not a macro.
> > > >
> > > > Would that be more reasonable then changing the ABI?
> > >
> > > Technically, this would be an API rather than ABI change, since the
> > > functions are inlined in the code. However, it's not the only API
> > > change I'm looking to make here - I'd like to have all the
> > > functions start returning details of the state of the ring, rather
> > > than have the watermarks facility. If we add all new functions for
> > > this and keep the old ones around, we are just increasing our
> > > maintenance burden.
> > >
> > > I'd like other opinions here. Do we see increasing the API surface
> > > as the best solution, or are we ok to change the APIs of a key
> > > library like the rings one?
> > I am ok with changing API to make both _bulk and _burst return the
> > same thing. Konstantin
> I agree that the _bulk() functions returning 0 or -err can be confusing.
> But it has at least one advantage: it explicitly shows that if user ask
> for N enqueues/dequeues, it will either get N or 0, not something
> Changing the API of the existing _bulk() functions looks a bit
> dangerous to me. There's probably a lot of code relying on the ring
> API, and changing its behavior may break it.
> I'd prefer to deprecate the old _bulk and _burst functions, and
> introduce a new api, maybe something like:
> rte_ring_generic_dequeue(ring, objs, n, behavior, flags)
> -> return nb_objs or -err
Don't like the -err, since it's not a valid value that can be used e.g.
in simple loops in the case that the user doesn't care about the exact
reason for error. I prefer having zero returned on error, with rte_errno
set appropriately, since then it is trivial for apps to ignore error
values they don't care about.
It also makes the APIs in a ring library consistent in that all will set
rte_errno on error, rather than returning the error code. It's not right
for rte_ring_create and rte_ring_lookup to return an error code since
they return pointers, not integer values.
As for deprecating the functions - I'm not sure about that. I think the
names of the existing functions are ok, and should be kept. I've a new
patchset of cleanups for rte_rings in the works. Let me try and finish
that and send it out as an RFC and we'll see what you think then.
More information about the dev