From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE0377E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2016 17:31:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214]
 helo=[192.168.0.10])
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1adh2j-000643-Qp; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:33:02 +0100
To: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>,
 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <1455634095-4183-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1457517037-71693-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1457517037-71693-5-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <56DFFF06.3080209@redhat.com> <56E00971.8040905@intel.com>
 <56E03A60.6010807@6wind.com> <56E04F3E.9020503@intel.com>
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <56E04FDB.4070100@6wind.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:31:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E04F3E.9020503@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] mempool: add in the RTE_NEXT_ABI for
 ABI breakages
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:31:31 -0000

Hi David,

On 03/09/2016 05:28 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>> Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear in my previous messages. For me, the
>> NEXT_ABI is not the proper solution because, as Panu stated, it makes
>> the patch hard to read. My understanding of NEXT_ABI is that it should
>> only be used if the changes are small enough. Duplicating the code with
>> a big #ifdef NEXT_ABI is not an option to me either.
>>
>> So that's why the deprecation notice should be used instead. But in this
>> case, it means that this patch won't be present in 16.04, but will be
>> added in 16.07.
>>
> Sure, v4 will remove the NEXT_ABI patch , and replace it with just the
> ABI break announcement for 16.07. For anyone who what's to try out the
> patch, they can always get it from patchwork, but not as part 16.04.

I think it's better to have the deprecation notice in a separate
mail, outside of the patch series, so Thomas can just apply this
one and let the series pending for 16.07.

Thanks,
Olivier