From: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: ABI and inline functions
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3a1ca7e-8afb-dd42-ff6a-ffbf227e6474@ashroe.eu> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190423142342.i22oU1wUuF0KEOmd8LtD8O9cX4So2P2-hlPTOl00Wrk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB24241F838D93162AE0F2F559C8260@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
On 18/04/2019 06:56, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:21 AM
>> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
>> Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
>> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Ray Kinsella
>> <mdr@ashroe.eu>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI and inline functions
>>> I would value ABI compatibility much higher than API compatibility.
>>>> If someone is recompiling the application anyway, making a couple of
>>>> small changes (large rework is obviously a different issue) to the
>>>> code should not be a massive issue, I hope. On the other hand, ABI
>>>> compatibility is needed to allow seamless update from one version to
>>>> another, and it's that ABI compatiblity that allows distro's to pick up our
>> latest and greatest versions.
>>>
>>> IMO, We have two primary use case for DPDK
>>>
>>> 1) NFV kind of use case where the application needs to run on multiple
>> platform
>>> without recompiling it.
>>> 2) Fixed appliance use case where embed SoC like Intel Denverton or
>>> ARM64 integrated Controller used. For fixed appliance use case, end
>>> user care more of performance than ABI compatibility as it easy to
>>> recompile the end user application vs the cost of hitting performance impact.
>>
>> Nobody cares about compatiablity until they have to the first security update.
>
> For fixed appliance case, The update(FW update) will be a single blob which
> Include all the components. So they can back port the security fix and recompile
> the sw as needed.
>
> The very similar category is DPDK running in smart NICs(Runs as FW in PCIe EP device).
So is there a real versus a perceived compromise happen here - that we
are compromising optimal performance in order to make API stability
happen? Do we have specific an examples that this is actually the case?
Thanks,
Ray K
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-17 5:12 [dpdk-dev] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-17 5:12 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-17 8:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-17 8:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-17 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 17:46 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-17 17:46 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-17 18:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 18:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-18 5:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-18 5:56 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-23 14:23 ` Ray Kinsella [this message]
2019-04-23 14:23 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 18:38 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-24 18:38 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-23 14:19 ` [dpdk-dev] " Ray Kinsella
2019-04-23 14:19 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-18 4:34 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-18 4:34 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-18 10:28 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-18 10:28 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-23 14:12 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-23 14:12 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 5:15 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24 5:15 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24 11:08 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 11:08 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 12:22 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 12:22 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 12:54 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 12:54 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 15:44 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-24 15:44 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-30 8:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-30 8:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-24 5:08 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24 5:08 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24 8:49 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-24 8:49 ` Bruce Richardson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c3a1ca7e-8afb-dd42-ff6a-ffbf227e6474@ashroe.eu \
--to=mdr@ashroe.eu \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).