From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED5E2C0C for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:16:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2016 02:16:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,465,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1028883403" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.36]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 Aug 2016 02:16:06 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:16:05 +0025 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:16:05 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Wei Dai Message-ID: <20160803091605.GA24816@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1470059264-29772-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com> <1470103765-18226-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com> <20160802160410.GC17728@bricha3-MOBL3> <7643576.4dP007pDNR@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7643576.4dP007pDNR@xps13> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] lpm: remove redundant check when adding lpm rule X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:16:10 -0000 On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:36:41PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-08-02 17:04, Bruce Richardson: > > Having to make this change twice shows up the fact that we are still carrying > > around some version changes for older releases. Given that we are now past the > > 16.07 release, the old code can probably be removed. Any volunteers to maybe > > do up a patch for that. > > The first step would be to announce an ABI breakage. > Do you plan to do other breaking changes? We may try to group them. > Why does an ABI breakage need to be announced? The code has been in place for some time, and was called out as an API change in the release notes for 16.04. Any app compiled against either 16.04 or 16.07 release will work fine once the code is removed. Any app compiled against an earlier version: a) is not guaranteed to work, because we only guarantee 1-version compatibility right now b) in practice almost certainly won't work with 16.11 anyway, due to ABI changes in other areas. Therefore, I would view an ABI announcement as rather pointless. /Bruce