Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] Removal of PCI bus ABIs

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

14/10/2021 10:07, Xia, Chenbo:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 14/10/2021 09:00, Xia, Chenbo:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > 14/10/2021 04:21, Xia, Chenbo:
> > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > > Yes I think we need to agree on functions to keep as-is for
> > compatibility.
> > > > > > Waiting for your input please.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, do you mean currently DPDK doesn't guarantee ABI for drivers
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > > but could have driver ABI in the future?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so, not general compatibility,
> > > > but we can think about a way to avoid breaking SPDK specifically,
> > > > which has less requirements.
> > >
> > > So the problem here is exposing some APIs to SPDK directly? Without the
> > 'enable_driver_sdk'
> > > option, I don't see a solution of both exposed and not-ABI. Any idea in your
> > mind?
> > 
> > No the idea is to keep using enable_driver_sdk.
> > But so far, there is no compatibility guarantee for driver SDK.
> > The discussion is about which basic compatibility requirement is needed for
> > SPDK.
> 
> Sorry for not understanding your point quickly, but what's the difference of
> 'general compatibility' and 'basic compatibility'? Because in my mind, one
> struct or function should either be ABI-compatible or not. Could you help explain
> it a bit?

I wonder whether we could have a guarantee for a subset of structs and functions.
Anyway, this is just opening the discussion to collect some inputs first.
Then we'll have to check what is possible and get a techboard approval.