From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E50A0524; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:55:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0951C01F; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:55:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF021C014 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:55:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70293BA; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:55:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:55:44 -0500 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=mesmtp; bh=zrRhFZu6jCGX7ccHer+CJV3WSzJOcQJ0Je4zCDVn1vg=; b=ZSVIgC/qAgwX N9V20jWR39vUsJi+BLwRqa3D2Zq2sA7VWluCQnhcw6aDJCSCExXIA6e7I/Izjw9I XCkKuMhHPVjxNP53DKgl7Jbv1/ShXdkij5+1e2bFm60YLa4B12a/gndi4QDMSRJd TgVtV10QjxaNpsRuzu9SUjCAIXNxDt0= 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=zrRhFZu6jCGX7ccHer+CJV3WSzJOcQJ0Je4zCDVn1 vg=; b=ldIzR7kcvAC0wxcYEM7x7LhQJ/S+VtzzA6wQnBTe2dzkRrGch/6pmvonS uAxCDy7glPrpiE4/PUgSQOr53qApXJkSXj38o2VcG6ejrJ8OnKUPLIEF2OZV76XE xxvdA0ICQk+nhHXszopbvjRSUeqPfwBm1Flsb8V/H9d3dQVLb6BSXXsjSPgY0nH7 NYVQr8nGc7SOy/GyEqsWfDRq8ODnJRWIqBv8KqXENb4KwBR3NxabASIH7JimpRCk 4kZuOYgZwae5j3da67967uRBGoBlEDEIBdC4iIWN+YcYF96bj5Cl04p8npO/fj+E ie82uTzVFapoPDRUWZZe/fE3iXMXg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrfeekgdekudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 09E66328005E; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:55:41 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Luca Boccassi Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Neil Horman , Cristian Dumitrescu , Eelco Chaudron , dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , Ian Stokes , Andrzej Ostruszka Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:55:40 +0100 Message-ID: <5634584.alqRGMn8q6@xps> In-Reply-To: <71b93a9bbebf1f047f24d3f455eab1bf2712dcf4.camel@debian.org> References: <20200129122953.2016199-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <1929128.8hb0ThOEGa@xps> <71b93a9bbebf1f047f24d3f455eab1bf2712dcf4.camel@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] meter: fix ABI break due to experimental tag removal 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/01/2020 15:21, Luca Boccassi: > On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 15:17 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 30/01/2020 13:57, Luca Boccassi: > > > On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 13:33 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I disagree with the need of this patch. > > > > The symbol was experimental, meaning we can change it. > > > > Removing experimental tag is not an ABI break. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This symbol change was requested for backport in 19.11.x, and > > > experimental or not I'm not too keen on backward incompatible > > > changes > > > to the public interface in an _LTS point release_. The compromise > > > was > > > to see if we could support both symbols version, which makes the > > > change > > > backward compatible. > > > > > > If you prefer not to have this patch in mainline I'm also fine in > > > taking it just for the LTS. I agree with you that it is not > > > required > > > for mainline releases (although nicer for me if it's a backport > > > rather > > > than a new change). > > > > I would like to avoid opening the door for maintaining the > > experimental ABI > > in the mainline. Please take it directly in the LTS. > > > > The next question is to know whether we really want to have such > > patch in LTS. > > Anyway, 19.11.0 has this symbol as experimental. > > How adding a non-experimental version of the function in 19.11.1 will > > change > > the ABI status of the whole 19.11 branch? > > The problem is not adding the new symbol, but removing the experimental > one. Changing the version of the symbol was requested by OVS for > inclusion in 19.11. Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. Given 19.11.0 already has the symbol as experimental, and that applications like OVS had to accept it as experimental, why removing experimental tag in 19.11.1?