From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD0A475E for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u206so24766280wme.1 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 03:02:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8D0oLNFYh7whZ04e36InZx+Vi8K8nk9amPLDa45/bmo=; b=SDmp5DUrssiAY9JI/APcqzLGGN2wWcAtFTlxfivaFZ3GKRjhc5D3rZLzVYur7Y0IGy LSCxD6CFDguBpb6Cms85s61Wl3lKal7+DDhOVaVuHLz5mCkjnrT4VHON7U33zAEy8pLs WgImXR9BAjncPjcSv0/5RLEGJ8Q5KPyjt0frm3wivLQfmGjkd0DQcoO/C5kEm1VIAI7o /YKk72aZIlrzwcGjoe9zPFdcgu6cYe/r2D8w9iWiz5psBT1tVeRvsalhFv37BS9t+ZX8 zZLOH+fYQxRzdVCCfvVOEa5Wc8p2s1hoPVBxrDsJhcznltsH6vsS/vzelN9NEZOadKc4 jPCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8D0oLNFYh7whZ04e36InZx+Vi8K8nk9amPLDa45/bmo=; b=Oy6zXJSejIn+V/VOX64pdqdvvO6iTyrEad5fu3VYrB6uEUI4dM/JB2iZyXzLOSg0+2 t0Uuy3zHTlUNJ/x6QTWo362dydI7rlAyp+UJzuWM43Z6p9BwKfmEP8Qnpl7Nzkol9TKe vbBI4JIjsMEHtJM/Ha0F1xNPwKzrV7b3uYVd2KyQkk731eonX5JYnnv/gUiaDU6T4iDj /+sfFhMFveKpG941U9dBGmQh/Un2ubtA1/ay6Va6O0WkEqSlooBA0BhZZ3pEbs63pmh5 bgXaE51PEFCgpFIuGDyrntdtokSWC3RQAuJ+CYK8u6ViGh70/+mCSMaE9fo79mQUmJNJ 9Yjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVhx8UGY8fRHtHZ+tEHhJwIpltL8U2AfpIr4R6+Tk8COTv24+gAZS8Q8WvXGQSdycrF X-Received: by 10.28.213.142 with SMTP id m136mr3575109wmg.24.1460714566251; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 03:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (245.111.75.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.75.111.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b1sm48193759wjy.0.2016.04.15.03.02.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 03:02:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Reshma Pattan Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:02:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4440796.rO07sIKd23@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1460627077-8207-2-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> References: <1460627077-8207-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <1460627077-8207-2-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for rte_eth_dev_info structure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:02:46 -0000 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 In general the Signed-off lines are the same as the From: field. Here it would be: Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan (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.