From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52748A0679 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:37:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDABE1B3A7; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817B21B3A4; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:37:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2019 09:37:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,308,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="128642207" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.103]) ([10.237.220.103]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2019 09:37:47 -0700 To: Stephen Hemminger , Bruce Richardson Cc: Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, Kevin Traynor , "techboard@dpdk.org" References: <94df3cc4-de54-72d6-84c6-81bebd209a81@intel.com> <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <20190404085127.24d02988@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190404085127.24d02988@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190404163746.70hW0jMPIiFmqJwuDW8OnasmgDmgBM3iNKIVwU2gnN0@z> On 04-Apr-19 4:51 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:47 +0100 > Bruce Richardson wrote: > >> My thoughts on the matter are: >> 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data >> structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should reduce >> the scope for ABI breaks. >> 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in the >> rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I want us >> to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up by all >> linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. > > I would also like to propose "you get one ABI break" which means each > API/ABI change must hide more infrastructure than the last. This is > the "fool me once, ..." saying in API's. > > For example, > the memory rework it would have been good if the structure of mempools etc > were hidden inside EAL and not exposed. but as usual hindsight is 20/20 > Mempools is not part of "memory rework" - it's a separate library built on top of EAL's memory subsystem :) When i talk about "memory API's", i mean memzone/malloc and friends, not mempool. -- Thanks, Anatoly