From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] DPDK techboard minutes of October 24 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:33:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181110091727.GA20155@jerin> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010CE49651@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> <20181112084353.506b2786@xeon-e3> <2240482.x5FLNkSg3a@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techboard@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Jerin Jacob , "dev@dpdk.org" To: Thomas Monjalon , Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2240482.x5FLNkSg3a@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12-Nov-18 4:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 12/11/2018 17:43, Stephen Hemminger: >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:36:45 +0000 >> "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: >>> From: Richardson, Bruce >>>> From: techboard [mailto:techboard-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, >>>>> Konstantin >>>>> >>>>> Hi Anatoly, >>>>> >>>>>>> Meeting notes for the DPDK technical board meeting held on >>>>>>> 2018-10-24 > [...] >>>>>>> 0) DPDK acceptance policy on un-implemented API >>>>>>> - New APIs without implementation is not accepted. >>>>>>> - In order to accept a new API, At minimum >>>>>>> a) Need to provide an unit test case or example application >>>>>>> b) If the API is about HW abstraction, at least one driver should be >>>>>>> implemented. Preferably two. >>>>>>> c) If there are strong objections on ML about the need for more than >>>>>>> one driver for a specific API then the technical board can make a >>>>>>> decision. >>>>>>> - Konstantin volunteered to send existing un-implemented API to the >>>>>>> mailing list. >>>>>>> - The existing un-implemented APIs will be deprecated in v19.05. >>>>>>> - Deprecated un-implemented API will be removed in v19.08 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this also apply to unimplemented parts of the existing API? For >>>>>> example, malloc API has long had a "name" parameter which goes >>>>>> unimplemented through entire lifetime of DPDK project. It would be >>>>>> good to drop this thing entirely as it's clear it's not going to be >>>>>> implemented any time soon :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like a good idea to me. >>>>> Konstantin >>>> >>>> While a good idea in theory, I'm not sure the cost-benefit pays off for this one. Given the fact that the extra parameter is rather harmless, >>>> the benefit seems minimal compared to the effort which would be involved for everyone to have to change every rte_malloc call in every >>>> app! >>> >>> I am agree about massive amount of changes, though I thought Anatoly sort of volunteering for it :) >>> About benefit - it would save us spilling/restoring one register for each rte_malloc() call. >>> Probably not that important, as rte_malloc() usually is used from data-path, but still. >>> Plus it doesn't look good to have a function with parameter that would never be used. >>> Konstantin >>> >>> >> >> I agree, we should do these kind of cleanups, but only on ABI breaking releases. >> Too late now for 18.11 and next one is probably 19.11 > > We can discuss which release can break ABI. > I think 19.05 is a good candidate. > There's not much *actual* work involved in the rte_malloc change - mostly search-and-replace. Given the head-start, i can go on with this in the background so that it doesn't take away from my day-to-day activities, and get it ready for 19.05 in time. -- Thanks, Anatoly