Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for rte_eth_dev_info structure

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-04-14 10:44, Reshma Pattan:
> New fields nb_rx_queues and nb_tx_queues will be added to
> rte_eth_dev_info structure.
> Changes to API rte_eth_dev_info_get() will be done to update
> these new fields to rte_eth_dev_info object.
> 
> Signed-off-by:reshma Pattan<reshma.pattan@intel.com>

In general the Signed-off lines are the same as the From: field.
Here it would be:
Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
(note the spaces and the uppercase)

> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -90,3 +90,9 @@ Deprecation Notices
>    a handle, like the way kernel exposes an fd to user for locating a
>    specific file, and to keep all major structures internally, so that
>    we are likely to be free from ABI violations in future.
> +
> +* A librte_ether public structure ``rte_eth_dev_info`` will be changed in 16.07.
> +  The proposed change will add new parameters ``nb_rx_queues``, ``nb_tx_queues``
> +  to the structure. These are the number of queues configured by software.
> +  Modification to definition of ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` will be done
> +  to update new parameters to ``rte_eth_dev_info`` object.

It is too late for this announce as it won't appear in the doc downloaded for
version 16.04. So it is obviously rejected.
The question here is: are you allowed to do a small ABI change given that
the ABI will be broken in this version?
I would say there can be some exceptional tolerance.
I have no strong opinion myself but maybe others will have one.

By the way, I have some comments about the patch.