From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AF15F30
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Mar 2018 16:35:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-40b7-640c-26a-4e16-9225.dyn6.twc.com
 ([2606:a000:111b:40b7:640c:26a:4e16:9225] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1etxZx-0005p8-9l; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:35:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:35:04 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
 Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <20180308153504.GA32578@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
References: <20180307174422.118291-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <6880912.l9NoFy8GUE@xps>
 <cc7522b2-d0b1-6522-527e-3e247c59ba62@intel.com>
 <1672091.0Tzq5VA8o7@xps>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1672091.0Tzq5VA8o7@xps>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:35:47 -0000

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:17:00PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 08/03/2018 12:43, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 3/8/2018 8:05 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 07/03/2018 18:44, Ferruh Yigit:
> > >> After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI
> > >> config and process which has similar targets?
> > > 
> > > They are different targets.
> > > Experimental API is always enabled but may be avoided by applications.
> > > Next ABI can be used to break ABI without notice and disabled to keep
> > > old ABI compatibility. It is almost never used because it is preferred
> > > to keep ABI compatibility with rte_compat macros, or wait a deprecation
> > > period after notice.
> > 
> > OK, I see.
> > 
> > Shouldn't we disable it by default at least? Otherwise who is not paying
> > attention to this config option will get and ABI/API break.
> 
> Yes I think you are right, it can be disabled by default.
> 
I would agree, there seems to be overlap here, and the experimental tagging can
cover what the NEXT_API flag is meant to do.  It can be removed I think.
Neil

> 
> 
>