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 3968EA0A0C; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 16:13:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6004014F; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 16:13:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039304003E; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 16:13:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450545C013E; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Aug 2021 10:13:30 -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=fm1; bh= wwbf+Lgf4wt5Gz+1majJoJ1KklRyCspPSfAgH0CSkFk=; b=UGp4XW1XAryMfbze a3mf7c919u69CxEi4uAWH+/WrN+mEZi8eRZ+xCTVluVZ9y43XkXAhNFpBsSRhjnm gUaYMAzoNVufZXVEVbZ/yWZ7WTnm9lqNxF0ZJJdZ2qaf3Coxgr8Naoe/F64iKMVO vXvU4FU1QWm5oTl9k6pGQc11cob+7kUyFVUo7MhF/xExgRnsxX0YStwSLLUTlxMd 7JQEQLJHeLel7SW0LA+S7mdZDHmNa8GQTeCwy6fg4lgqLQ4DK7zw/sKkMblFWDUv WCto7veYsEtGUqRAn9UgMTr2G5IQHL+bh9NM4iQ+MKMctHyEXyAnM9VgdSi8qhq5 lQph2w== 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=fm3; bh=wwbf+Lgf4wt5Gz+1majJoJ1KklRyCspPSfAgH0CSk Fk=; b=nHTxvx0ScoF2aTnk3aycAa2Lzy97SGlqH64GxLtKwveNObuW9uGhiMWdx AHrla3ZCFOnaX/n2P46WKuNwYrKouk1hAFmZ2OeOo8PQ2ReMrF8uxMUMyTWQ0HLA qLK8+a6eecy7MgFcFOXYmLynBOR6fYnBD6y6fa16Xhyuo+9Kt8Hk04ylhfaF4PwH UdjWHzk5UGPXsl/2kPjDeo+j8a+ByNe8eRd9fjg+Og1ECQ6W3tb4Jqxm1asmxQMg iwlGhkPz8kaJaLIlSqbaDAmMBacp67T+7VsmpmW+9fw7j1LRd7kOgGP80XdR7J+d hftkdmMh7U5jJ5GKvJjPyoQ65t6Ag== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrieejgdehhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeffvdffjeeuteelfeeileduudeugfetjeelveefkeejfeeigeehteff vdekfeegudenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdr nhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:13:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" , "Kinsella, Ray" Cc: dpdk-dev , techboard@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 16:13:26 +0200 Message-ID: <27596960.VpaegHdPW6@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210623000349.631468-2-xuemingl@nvidia.com> <6288309.S2O2uDqRzi@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus 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" 04/08/2021 15:53, Kinsella, Ray: > On 04/08/2021 14:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/08/2021 15:00, Xueming(Steven) Li: > >> From: Kinsella, Ray > >>> On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > >>>> From: Kinsella, Ray > >>>>> Its not strictly a depreciation notice though, you are not breaking anything right. > >>>>> Since you are not breaking anything, don't think the notice is required in the 21.11 timeframe. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now if you where doing it in 21.08, it would be an ABI change and that would be a different story. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for looking at this! > >>>> Yes, it targets to 21.11. The offloading flag is fine, but the shared_group does break ABI, detail: > >>>> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/215575.html > >>> > >>> Right ... its a new field, not a depreciation as such. > >>> What I mean by this is that no existing code is broken. > >>> > >>> 21.11 is a new ABI in any case and you are not depreciating anything, so no notice is required. > >> > >> Maybe it a new process, confirmed with Thomas, it's expected: > >> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-changes > > > > I think what Ray means is that it breaks ABI but not API, > > so he doesn't consider a notice is required. > > > My understanding of the policy is that *any* ABI change requires a notice. > > But if you want to make it lighter and allow any non-announced ABI change > > in an ABI-breaking release, I think I would vote for. > > Thanks for clarifying Thomas ... you are correct. In the meantime, let's review and ack notices, even if ABI-only change: https://patches.dpdk.org/bundle/tmonjalo/deprecation-notices/ We'll discuss later if we can accept more ABI change, but we should try to be on the safe side for those already announced.