Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 19.11 v2 1/3] ethdev: hide key ethdev structures from public API

From: "Zapolski, MarcinX A" <marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com>
To: "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 19.11 v2 1/3] ethdev: hide key ethdev structures from public API
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:02:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51FEE37A1339864DB0A4E34597F561E30D5D6AB2@HASMSX113.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a301e121-7fe5-9d55-51e5-f0051d444e22@intel.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 12:00 PM
> To: Zapolski, MarcinX A <marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 19.11 v2 1/3] ethdev: hide key ethdev
> structures from public API
> 
> On 9/9/2019 9:07 AM, Zapolski, MarcinX A wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 4:38 PM
> >> To: Zapolski, MarcinX A <marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 19.11 v2 1/3] ethdev: hide key ethdev
> >> structures from public API
> >>
> >> On 9/6/2019 2:18 PM, Marcin Zapolski wrote:
> >>> Split rte_eth_dev structure to two parts: head that is available for
> >>> user applications, and rest which is DPDK internal.
> >>> Make an array of pointers to rte_eth_dev structures available for
> >>> user applications.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Zapolski <marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_bitratestats/rte_bitrate.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_bitratestats/rte_bitrate.c
> >>> index 639e47547..82d469514 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_bitratestats/rte_bitrate.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_bitratestats/rte_bitrate.c
> >>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> >>>   */
> >>>
> >>>  #include <rte_common.h>
> >>> -#include <rte_ethdev.h>
> >>> +#include <rte_ethdev_driver.h>
> >>
> >> This is in the library, not sure if libraries should include the
> >> header file for the drivers, can you please explain why this change is
> needed?
> >>
> > It is needed to make rte_eth_dev structure available. But yes, I agree that
> it will be more appropriate to include rte_ethdev.h and rte_ethdev_core.h
> separately. I probably wanted less includes, silly me.
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >>>  #define _RTE_ETHDEV_PROFILE_H_
> >>>
> >>>  #include "rte_ethdev.h"
> >>> +#include "rte_ethdev_core.h"
> >>>
> >>>  /**
> >>>   * Initialization of the Ethernet device profiling.
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c index 17d183e1f..5c6cc640a 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> >>>
> >>>  #include "rte_ether.h"
> >>>  #include "rte_ethdev.h"
> >>> +#include "rte_ethdev_core.h"
> >>>  #include "rte_ethdev_driver.h"
> >>>  #include "ethdev_profile.h"
> >>>  #include "ethdev_private.h"
> >>
> >> I was hoping "rte_ethdev_core.h" can be removed completely by
> >> distributing its content to "ethdev_private.h", "rte_ethdev_driver.h"
> >> and perhaps even to "rte_ethdev.h".
> >>
> >> Can you please explain what prevents removing "rte_ethdev_core.h"?
> > I could rename it to rte_ethdev_private. There is just rte_eth_dev and
> rte_eth_dev_data left in it.
> >
> 
> I think drivers access to both 'rte_eth_dev' and 'rte_eth_dev_data' so can't
> move them to 'ethdev_private.h' why not move it to 'rte_ethdev_driver.h'?

Because the libraries use them as well.