From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F486A0C53; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:07:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DC740042; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:07:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482A540041 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:07:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0617C32015ED; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 03:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 03:07:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= /WvsI0TtVgrQ2TmJ7MfkWJ2+y+4CNDKk3LY+GjODA2I=; b=qJC3LtMLLUMgrtvH rMw1LuhXqsMxbSVVx7r5gjtHDOKKeHFkQ+Wj6ylNBkd5hlPdLiKkU/RCTs0ve7Yd GBQ1/sQMmBaHYoOZQBHQpKQh5TBbAzPpuNpcWynbjm6LIZ4POEB5tafbMyxJqP0C 72OPFrce87qXkELh2OBJFLAmz49LGMCZQT7J8FQlIh6s8DC8RvGqM02xbOLm7fZO ZYb5PQXvWkVDuGDnvjkmR+o5F+tUQgXsIYejqn4pHkboTe6JKGB1T5wVaKeS8XPh sI1yfyeQp0wq/CdafTDWfmwVnfkxckghsDsWF9xX5cOJJQcjouStmK/JVb8of7/r qgY1+w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/WvsI0TtVgrQ2TmJ7MfkWJ2+y+4CNDKk3LY+GjODA 2I=; b=UKmB4bvPVRimEYkPTpPEkh/HnFak6rHWDNiD8008YTyinlTvuY0n8gZKo 8ZfyoV/R8JggNnuKEzFWio7Ay5LDfntu0i8FqB9svXJwBx/ksHFOnxJVYdrhq3Yf LpPO7fqiw0vEe31djJrNQ6GMMBjrUWaMJjiZ7zeHkyWsye1qT/Y1lSptY+g5YZp/ 9kDV8mYLMSYTKu/Cz21TIaaqO5tbyUSfZVeYWiRuUiFG0kYRAt0KHwYMG2Xb66Ou LTuDHYXwpUobQOh1+ND2Fx5hY9ZU1tVrH8gkPN/v+Ke8c7GTNp6O1ADNxcSpAc7P CGE5WXic1NVXpzPG6Xe9mydkTAPRg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdduuddguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 03:07:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Harris, James R" , "Walker, Benjamin" , "Xia, Chenbo" Cc: "Liu, Changpeng" , David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole , "Zawadzki, Tomasz" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:07:33 +0200 Message-ID: <2091995.fClCOlFDNO@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210910022402.26620-1-chenbo.xia@intel.com> <1656274.a7FMDE9GDv@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] Removal of PCI bus ABIs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 14/10/2021 09:00, Xia, Chenbo: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 14/10/2021 04:21, Xia, Chenbo: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > 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.