Message ID | 1468936875-1652-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded, archived |
Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802685320; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:01:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxy.6wind.com (host.76.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com [62.23.145.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623165320 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from glumotte.dev.6wind.com (unknown [10.16.0.195]) by proxy.6wind.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1447624736; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:01:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:01:15 +0200 Message-Id: <1468936875-1652-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.8.1 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for mbuf structure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Olivier Matz
July 19, 2016, 2:01 p.m. UTC
For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage.
Some discussions already took place here:
http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/
Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Comments
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage. > Some discussions already took place here: > http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> > --- > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices > * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are deprecated and > will be removed in 16.11. > It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. > + > +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some > + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, > + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms > + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The > + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion. > -- Have we fully bottomed out on the mbuf changes. I'm not sure that once patches start getting considered for merge, new opinions may come forward. For instance, is the "port" field really "useless"? Would it not be better to put in a less specific deprecation notice? What happens if this notice goes in and the final changes are different from those called out here? /Bruce
Hi Bruce, On 07/19/2016 04:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: >> For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage. >> Some discussions already took place here: >> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> >> --- >> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices >> * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are deprecated and >> will be removed in 16.11. >> It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. >> + >> +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some >> + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, >> + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms >> + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The >> + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion. >> -- > > Have we fully bottomed out on the mbuf changes. I'm not sure that once patches > start getting considered for merge, new opinions may come forward. For instance, > is the "port" field really "useless"? > > Would it not be better to put in a less specific deprecation notice? What happens > if this notice goes in and the final changes are different from those called out > here? Yes, you are right. What about the following text? ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some fields may be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The ``port`` field may also be removed at the same occasion. Thanks, Olivier
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:04 PM > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; > thomas.monjalon@6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for mbuf > structure > > Hi Bruce, > > On 07/19/2016 04:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > >> For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage. > >> Some discussions already took place here: > >> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> > >> --- > >> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >> index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 > >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >> @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices > >> * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are > deprecated and > >> will be removed in 16.11. > >> It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. > >> + > >> +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: > >> +some > >> + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of > >> +``data_off``, > >> + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some > >> +platforms > >> + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. > >> +The > >> + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion. > >> -- > > > > Have we fully bottomed out on the mbuf changes. I'm not sure that once > > patches start getting considered for merge, new opinions may come > > forward. For instance, is the "port" field really "useless"? > > > > Would it not be better to put in a less specific deprecation notice? > > What happens if this notice goes in and the final changes are > > different from those called out here? > > Yes, you are right. What about the following text? > > ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some > fields may be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, > ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms have > an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The ``port`` > field may also be removed at the same occasion. > Better. Two suggestions: 1. change "Indeed" to "because" and join the sentences. 2. change the last sentence to be even more general: "Other mbuf fields, such as the port field, may be moved or removed as part of this mbuf work". /Bruce
On 07/19/2016 05:07 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:04 PM >> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; >> thomas.monjalon@6wind.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for mbuf >> structure >> >> Hi Bruce, >> >> On 07/19/2016 04:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: >>>> For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage. >>>> Some discussions already took place here: >>>> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> >>>> --- >>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices >>>> * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are >> deprecated and >>>> will be removed in 16.11. >>>> It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. >>>> + >>>> +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: >>>> +some >>>> + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of >>>> +``data_off``, >>>> + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some >>>> +platforms >>>> + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. >>>> +The >>>> + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion. >>>> -- >>> >>> Have we fully bottomed out on the mbuf changes. I'm not sure that once >>> patches start getting considered for merge, new opinions may come >>> forward. For instance, is the "port" field really "useless"? >>> >>> Would it not be better to put in a less specific deprecation notice? >>> What happens if this notice goes in and the final changes are >>> different from those called out here? >> >> Yes, you are right. What about the following text? >> >> ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some >> fields may be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, >> ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms have >> an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The ``port`` >> field may also be removed at the same occasion. >> > Better. Two suggestions: > 1. change "Indeed" to "because" and join the sentences. > 2. change the last sentence to be even more general: "Other mbuf fields, such as the port field, may be moved or removed as part of this mbuf work". It's much better indeed ;) Thanks Bruce, I'll submit a v2.
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are deprecated and will be removed in 16.11. It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. + +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion.