From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C9C2C4B for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:21:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2017 09:21:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,156,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="1106827923" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2017 09:21:35 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:21:34 +0000 From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" To: "Yigit, Ferruh" , Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Wiles, Keith" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? Thread-Index: AdKGEnJImeSf75PfSge93vGG7Cw9AgAARk2AAAFH+gAAARstUA== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:21:33 +0000 Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274C023@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274BEE4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1593922.H4Bo57569h@xps13> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiM2E0NTIwNDEtMWIzZi00ZTczLTg2ZWQtNGQyNWM0MzZjNjhjIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJUOVwvQ1ZnMGpUUDV0YnBSTjNaemcraGg4ZVwvbXdOV2pjbUpaRFVVXC9JM1BVPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:21:38 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:46 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon ; Dumitrescu, Cristian > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce ; Wiles, > Keith > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? >=20 > On 2/13/2017 4:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2017-02-13 16:02, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> When a new member (function pointer) is added to struct eth_dev_ops > (as the last member), does it need to go through ABI chance process (e.g. > chance notice one release before)? > >> > >> IMO the answer is no: struct eth_dev_ops is marked as internal and its > instances are only accessed through pointers, so the rte_eth_devices arra= y > should not be impacted by the ops structure expanding at its end. Unless > there is something that I am missing? > > > > You are right, it is an internal struct. > > So no need of a deprecation notice. >=20 > When dpdk compiled as dynamic library, application will load PMDs > dynamically as plugin. > Is this use case cause ABI compatibility issue? >=20 > I think drivers <--> libraries interface can cause ABI breakages for > dynamic library case, although not sure how common use case this is. >=20 Do you have a specific example that might cause an issue when adding a new = function at the end of the ethdev ops structure? I cannot think of any, giv= en that the ops structure is marked as internal and it is only accessed thr= ough pointers. >=20 > > > > We must clearly separate API and internal code in ethdev. > > > >> My question is in the context of this patch under review for 17.5 rele= ase: > http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-February/057367.html. > > > > I did not look at it yet. Will do after the release. > > > >