Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/net: remove explicit include of legacy filtering

From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	dev@dpdk.org, Rosen Xu <rosen.xu@intel.com>,
	Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	Sachin Saxena <sachin.saxena@oss.nxp.com>,
	Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
	Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
	Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
	Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>,
	Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/net: remove explicit include of legacy filtering
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:37:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d61a941-5262-7da3-bed8-12cc360e5f59@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <272955377.2llAV7lm0X@thomas>

On 3/25/2021 10:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 25/03/2021 11:00, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 3/25/2021 5:53 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 3/24/21 11:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 24/03/2021 19:08, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 3/21/2021 9:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> The header file rte_eth_ctrl.h should not be needed because
>>>>>> this legacy filtering API is completely replaced with the rte_flow API.
>>>>>> However some definitions from this file are still used by some drivers,
>>>>>> but such usage is already covered by an implicit include via rte_ethdev.h.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu@intel.com>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ptp.c       | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/iavf/iavf_hash.c        | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_acl_filter.c    | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_hash.c          | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_switch_filter.c | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/igc/igc_filter.h        | 1 -
>>>>>>     drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_flow.c    | 1 -
>>>>>
>>>>> Although this will work, if the above drives are using the defines from the
>>>>> header file, isn't it better to include it explicitly?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the benefit of including the header implicitly?
>>>>
>>>> The benefit is to progressively remove rte_eth_ctrl.h.
>>>> I want it to disappear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> This is just hiding its usage, the patch is not making it less used as a step
>> forward to remove it.
> 
> Yes you're right. The only step forward is esthetic:
> hiding something which should be removed.
> And maybe some of these files don't need the include at all.
> 
>> But anyway I guess it doesn't worth spending more time to discuss it ...
> 
> Feel free to reject if you feel it is not a good step.
> 

What do you think doing exact opposite,

remove "#include <rte_eth_ctrl.h>" from 'rte_ethdev.h',
and include 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' explicitly where ever it is required,

this can make more clear what components use the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' and why, which 
may help clearing them to remove the header. Plus it highlights if a new PMD 
wants to use the header, we can catch it easier.

When I tried above approach, it highlighted that not only drivers, libraries 
also using this header, 'librte_ehtdev' & 'librte_flow_classify'.
And for 'ethdev', the structs defined in the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' are part of public 
structs, so it is hard to remove them.
Some PMD specific APIs also needs 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' header, but that is hidden 
because of the implicit include, but again some structs in the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' 
are part of public APIs (although they are experimental).

Also, it turned out that same required headers in the drivers are hidden because 
of this implicit include in 'rte_ethdev.h', I will send a fix for it soon.