From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D801448BFD; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:34:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B174F4021F; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:34:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com (mail-pf1-f178.google.com [209.85.210.178]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A034013F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:34:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7b9c17dd591so4166470b3a.3 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2025 12:34:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1764621276; x=1765226076; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DaStLzCGMdGyFPcPqc8DwXOjHEtKZk7x+rgRDuGyI8k=; b=EJktEDQ79NdpWFMWqXcrB30UHDFYCk1J19WcSR9wrjDwznbI/Wexe1S01oChSmKfLM BWyLSyipFXe1sDWYcel+HGXgznqesU+NLTz62LfPyapNGmJG9HogphjQAFgkvAntetTC aZt2eM5Up1v7qraWdK8RqZTUd9s61ynMGf904= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764621276; x=1765226076; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DaStLzCGMdGyFPcPqc8DwXOjHEtKZk7x+rgRDuGyI8k=; b=aama3PiveAQwKlv6vr5Vh05MB9x09vUBD4QkbBg8Ig8OQvXWh608lo8/lvhInXOI8h XJ2M6cIgQkBRxY6G+5bdxrsAzUjKLVmDWKgofcxxlQM7BmouY2qj+A4Rz5yvR3mxENt+ hekKdzw85WWkLciNLX4+kp3Utfi+vxzE89wx0GMyHrdCp2JV8BPut1z3eqof5CTF6Ic0 hqi2GbFBkiCwQeZtt9fnxaaet3aFMf743Z1utuSHJZC18Of3clHCqOh77ltaDka79p80 +uyQRMgbzlEMn46srBMXr8JwwPiB45ow2DrNC1oLDnfPgPYYzt+2GMvSYcn/VldWSBUY lIQQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWf87vXP3SlAw+aKz1g0tcDhaBcrJrwyzd9MPtvShYut563dOqR3FKwXkeMdz9qdW/Dhg==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxCJvCPbvRfwCogmiYZppu57JH1hos39K9B2d/OYNDijEWJ6md2 zOBNjzDtJVDZupZF+W4PBb+0yM+QFT7xI6GDNA7NyFu5azopv1QgiT358UT2OSDZDKZfzI1DbHM UELLzbS98jiVhZR+nAqmLPTK5TEPu7s2u/QkRnuanXA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuI6aHh6sYfqdahXqG9lUNo5zTAyOIZ3nu+OxGMK8jY0xRiuFsjZFe3+HYO/32 iIzomff2OmLMjHkNGlsIaFnkp+D2wY1A7aUyOpOOsGgH8pLqvSbv/3xNtxPz/aHrs5GIrgplfKY CY0XR64aczgmOpOBuhJGAuAFx1yHMbT4OdefzPU71cR1ljHRgTcls0qw+1n4vyFUklz7HIEl0iY VbjaDMIC4rqnsceAczeTf7ob9UcNkRbfHYRsg0m4dwDuiw9kEwJ8KUKiu28YSa7EYWi6/jtEgeq rWFnWRzip1FW8IPACi4Sl/LDIY56 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGltUvuEf6BXjS/JcY3JRdRt4cb+CIZQeHHt+Yv+F2wlYRXNxA0fVgVN0fpv+8vKfie7EgvcLB9dMBekfhdJag= X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:6626:b0:11d:bea3:c93d with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11dbea3c9a8mr14541823c88.29.1764621275659; Mon, 01 Dec 2025 12:34:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3858067.Y6S9NjorxK@thomas> In-Reply-To: <3858067.Y6S9NjorxK@thomas> From: Patrick Robb Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 15:33:03 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_blLtYC03DFARBFh0h6e5ziGMkhbUwZy9uCNrrAmZp6hN_CUNMv5tbIqbwQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: ABI testing post 25.11 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Techboard@dpdk.org" , ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004c90370644e9e8ee" X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org --0000000000004c90370644e9e8ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay, we are building the 26.0 ABI reference on our testing environments now that 25.11 has been released. On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:35=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 25/11/2025 19:15, Patrick Robb: > > Hello tech board, > > > > I recall that earlier in the year, the ABI policy was being re-assessed= . > I > > do not recall if there was a conclusion to that discussion and a new > policy. > > > > Is it still correct that once 25.11 is released the UNH lab should > produce > > an ABI reference from it, and test patches for 26.03 and 26.07 against > that > > ABI reference? Thanks. > > Yes, ABI for 26.03 must be compared with 25.11. > And ABI for 26.07 must be compared with 26.03, > in order to check with symbols added in 26.03. > > > --0000000000004c90370644e9e8ee Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay, we are building the 26.0 ABI reference=C2=A0on our t= esting environments=C2=A0now that 25.11 has been released.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:35=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
25/11/2025 19:15, Patrick R= obb:
> Hello tech board,
>
> I recall that earlier in the year, the ABI policy was being re-assesse= d. I
> do not recall if there was a conclusion to that discussion and a new p= olicy.
>
> Is it still correct that once 25.11 is released the UNH lab should pro= duce
> an ABI reference from it, and test patches for 26.03 and 26.07 against= that
> ABI reference? Thanks.

Yes, ABI for 26.03 must be compared with 25.11.
And ABI for 26.07 must be compared with 26.03,
in order to check with symbols added in 26.03.


--0000000000004c90370644e9e8ee--