Great news! On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Status update: > > - v2 APIs are gone from CZMQ: > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1531 > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1532 > - PR is out to bump the libtool version and changelog for libzmq: > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2184 > - PR is out to backport the zmq_msg_t fix to 4.1: > https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/pull/155 > > Once it's all merged I will tag 4.2.0~rc1 first, then release 4.1.6 from > zeromq4-1 since quite a few fixes have accumulated. Then I'll send PRs > to prepare for CZMQ 4.0.0~rc1. > > After the RCs are out, I'll work on the changelogs/NEWS files (help is > appreciated!) as they have fallen dramatically behind. > > I'll also prepare more formal release notes for the stable rels, the RCs > will have just a quick note since they are RCs. > > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 23:47 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Cool! > > > > I can take care of it if you like. Tentative plan: > > > > Tomorrow push an RC1 for libzmq, then the pr to CZMQ to retire v2 APIs, > > then the RC1 for CZMQ. > > > > If it's all good then a couple days later the finals. I would really like > > to make it for the debian 9 transition freeze which is Saturday. > > > > On Oct 31, 2016 22:23, "Doron Somech" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, yes, lets do it :) > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2016 11:44 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Ping :-) > > >> > > >> On Oct 28, 2016 18:48, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have sent a solution for the alignment problem that solves the > sigbus > > >>> problem without breaking ABI compat (plus follow-up for VC++ - sorry > > >>> Windows guys https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2179 ). > > >>> > > >>> I tested the alignment and sigbus problem on x86_64 by enabling > > >>> alignment check with: > > >>> > > >>> __asm__("pushf\norl $0x40000,(%rsp)\npopf"); > > >>> > > >>> All was fine. > > >>> > > >>> I ran tests built from the zeromq4-1 repository against a shared lib > > >>> from the head of libzmq repo, and they all run fine minus the > > >>> ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE one but that option was borken anyway. > > >>> > > >>> This allows us to do a release now, and then when we are ready we > can do > > >>> the ABI breakage, without blocking 4.2. Which is nice since it means > it > > >>> might make it for Debian 9! > > >>> > > >>> So, Doron et al, shall we do the bump this weekend? > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:12 -0500, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > >>> > I will have some time most likely the week of Nov6 (off for a week > of > > >>> C++ > > >>> > Committee 'fun') to test different message size alternatives. I'll > > >>> follow > > >>> > up with my results here for consideration the next time we are > > >>> inclined to > > >>> > break the ABI compatibility :) > > >>> > > > >>> > On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Brian Knox <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > A new stable version would definitely help me in my quest to get > > >>> ZeroMQ > > >>> > > support enabled by default in rsyslog in distros. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM Doron Somech <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >> I say lets bump. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> On Oct 15, 2016 20:32, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> As Thomas said, false sharing would be a real issue with 96. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> So given a release is long due, at this point I'd say to drop > this > > >>> for > > >>> > >>> the moment. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> What do we do for the change to union for zmq_msg_t? Bump ABI > > >>> version or > > >>> > >>> not? > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 09:53 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: > > >>> > >>> > No new socket type, I worked at the time on binary message > type, > > >>> might > > >>> > >>> > complete it sometime, but it is not urgent. > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > If there is a lot of performance penalty we can give it up, I > > >>> will > > >>> > >>> > find another solution for the Radio-Dish. > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > What about 96 bytes? same penalty? > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > Regarding the binding, I'm not sure. > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Luca Boccassi < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:41 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for the late response, increasing the msg_t > structure > > >>> will be > > >>> > >>> > >> great, however this will require changing a lot of > binding. > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > I think I remember we need it for the new socket types, is > that > > >>> > >>> correct? > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > There is a large performance penalty (intuitively due to > not > > >>> fitting > > >>> > >>> > > into a single cache line anymore, but haven't ran > > >>> perf/cachegrind), > > >>> > >>> and > > >>> > >>> > > the throughput with vsm type messages goes down by 4% (min) > > >>> and 20% > > >>> > >>> > > (max) for TCP, and 36% (min) 38 (max) for inproc, which is > > >>> quite a > > >>> > >>> lot, > > >>> > >>> > > so we need to be sure it's worth it. > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > Regarding the bindings, after a quick search on the Github > > >>> org, I > > >>> > >>> could > > >>> > >>> > > only see: > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/lzmq/blob/master/src/lua/lzmq/ > > >>> > >>> ffi/api.lua#L144 > > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq4/blob/master/lib/zmq. > cs#L28 > > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/pyczmq/blob/master/pyczmq/zmq. > py#L > > >>> 177 > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > Other bindings just import zmq.h. Did I miss any? > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for disappearing, baby and full time job is a lot > :-), > > >>> > >>> hopefully > > >>> > >>> > >> I'm back... > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > No worries, perfectly understandable :-) > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luca Boccassi < > > >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> > Sorry, I meant if we go with (1), not (2), we might bump > > >>> the size > > >>> > >>> as > > >>> > >>> > >> > well, since we are already doing another ABI-breaking > > >>> change. > > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> > I agree on the solution as well. > > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:12 +0200, Pieter Hintjens > wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> I'm confused between the (1) and (2) choices, and can't > > >>> see where > > >>> > >>> > >> >> bumping the message size fits. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> Nonetheless, I think bumping the size, fixing the > alignment > > >>> > >>> issues, > > >>> > >>> > >> >> and bumping the ABI version is the best solution here. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Luca Boccassi < > > >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > I've given some more thoughts and testing to the > > >>> alignment > > >>> > >>> issue. I can > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > reproduce the problem by enabling alignment checks on > > >>> x86 too. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > But most importantly, I think we cannot get away from > > >>> bumping > > >>> > >>> the ABI > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > with this fix, however we rearrange it, simply > because > > >>> > >>> applications need > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > to be rebuilt against the new header to be fixed. A > > >>> simple > > >>> > >>> rebuild of > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > the libzmq.so is not enough. And the way to do this > is > > >>> to bump > > >>> > >>> the ABI > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > so that distros can schedule transitions and rebuilds > > >>> and so > > >>> > >>> on. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > So the choice list is now restricted to: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > 1) Bump ABI > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > 2) Revert the fix and leave everything broken on > sparc64 > > >>> and > > >>> > >>> some > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > aarch64 (rpi3 seems not to be affected, must depend > on > > >>> the SoC > > >>> > >>> flavour) > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > If we go with 2, we might as well get 2 birds with > one > > >>> stone > > >>> > >>> and bump > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > the zmq_msg_t size to 128 as we have talked about in > the > > >>> past. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Doron, this would help with the new UDP based socket > > >>> types > > >>> > >>> right? > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Pros of bumping msg size: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - we can get rid of the malloc() in the lmsg type > case > > >>> as all > > >>> > >>> the data > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > will fit > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Cons: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - for the vsm/cmsg type cases (for most architectures > > >>> anyway) > > >>> > >>> it won't > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > fit anymore into a single cacheline > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Given all this, I'd say we should go for it. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Opinions? > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 16:59 +0100, Luca Boccassi > wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Hello, > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Trying to give some thoughts again on the libzmq 4.2 > > >>> release. > > >>> > >>> It's > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> really long overdue! > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> The main issue from my point of view is this change: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/commit/ > > >>> > >>> d9fb1d36ff2008966af538f722a1f4ab158dbf64 > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> -typedef struct zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ [64];} > > >>> zmq_msg_t; > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +/* union here ensures correct alignment on > > >>> architectures > > >>> > >>> that require > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> it, e.g. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + * SPARC > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + */ > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +typedef union zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ [64]; > void > > >>> *p; } > > >>> > >>> zmq_msg_t; > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> This is flagged by the common ABI checkers tools as > an > > >>> ABI > > >>> > >>> breakage > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> (see: http://abi-laboratory.pro/trac > > >>> ker/timeline/zeromq/ ). > > >>> > >>> And it makes > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> sense from this point of view: if some applications > on > > >>> some > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> architectures are broken due to wrong alignment, > they > > >>> would > > >>> > >>> need to be > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> rebuilt, and the way to ensure that is to bump the > ABI > > >>> > >>> "current" digit > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to make sure maintainers do a rebuild. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On the other hand, signaling an ABI breakage is a > pain, > > >>> and a > > >>> > >>> cause of > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> major churn for packagers and maintainers. It means > for > > >>> > >>> example a new > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> package has to be created (eg: libzmq5 -> libzmq6), > and > > >>> a > > >>> > >>> transition has > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to be started and all reverse dependencies need to > be > > >>> > >>> rebuilt. And if > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> this is pointless for all save a few corner cases > (eg > > >>> SPARC64 > > >>> > >>> as for > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> above) it's all quite frustrating. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> So we have a choice to make before we release 4.2, > four > > >>> > >>> possibilities as > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> far as I can see: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 1) Ignore the ABI checkers and get yelled at by > > >>> maintainers > > >>> > >>> and > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> packagers. Also the SPARC64 users will most likely > NOT > > >>> get > > >>> > >>> their bug > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> fixed > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 2) Bump ABI revision to 6 and get yelled at by > > >>> maintainers > > >>> > >>> and packagers > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 3) Revert the above change and postpone it to when > we > > >>> have a > > >>> > >>> more > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> generally useful reason to break ABI (bump zmq_msg_t > > >>> from 64 > > >>> > >>> to 128 > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> bytes for example, Doron?) > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 4) Try to be clever and revert the above change and > use > > >>> > >>> something like > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> #pragma pack(8). This will fool the ABI checkers (I > > >>> tried > > >>> > >>> it), and given > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> that typedef is only used externally to allocate the > > >>> right > > >>> > >>> size it > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> shouldn't actually affect anything, apart from the > > >>> users of > > >>> > >>> SPARC64 > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> which should get the bugfix with this too. This is > very > > >>> > >>> sneaky :-) > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> CC'ing Lazslo, the Debian maintainer, given what we > > >>> choose to > > >>> > >>> do might > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> result in a lot of work for him :-) > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Opinions? > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Kind regards, > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Luca Boccassi > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 10:39 +0200, Pieter Hintjens > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Hi all, > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I'm just throwing some ideas on the table. We > have a > > >>> good > > >>> > >>> package of > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > work on master and it's probably time to make a > 4.2 > > >>> release. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Luca has already back-ported the enable/disable > draft > > >>> > >>> design from > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zproject (CZMQ et al). Yay! So we can now release > > >>> stable > > >>> > >>> master > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > safely, while continuing to refine and extend the > > >>> draft API > > >>> > >>> sections. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I propose: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to end with the stable fork policy; this was > needed > > >>> years > > >>> > >>> ago when > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > we had massively unstable masters. It's no longer > a > > >>> problem. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to use the github release function for libzmq > > >>> releases > > >>> > >>> and deprecate > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the separate delivery of tarballs. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we aim to make a 4.2.0 rc asap, then fix any > issues > > >>> we > > >>> > >>> get, with > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > patch releases as usual. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we backport the release function to older > maintained > > >>> > >>> releases (4.1, > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > 3.2) so that their tarballs are provided by github > > >>> instead > > >>> > >>> of > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > downloads.zeromq.org. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Problems: > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - this will break a few things that depend on > > >>> > >>> downloads.zeromq.org. To > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > be fixed as we go. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - github tarballs are not identical to source > > >>> tarballs, > > >>> > >>> particularly > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > they lack `configure`. I propose changing our > > >>> autotools > > >>> > >>> build > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > instructions so they always start with > `./autogen,sh` > > >>> no > > >>> > >>> matter where > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the sources come from. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I think this will work and also let us gracefully > > >>> > >>> deprecate/switch off > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the downloads box. > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > -Pieter > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > [email protected] > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/ > mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > [email protected] > > >>> > >>> > >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > >>> > >>> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >>> > >>> > >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list > > >>> > >>> > >> >> [email protected] > > >>> > >>> > >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> > >> zeromq-dev mailing list > > >>> > >> [email protected] > > >>> > >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list > > >>> > [email protected] > > >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
