Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

04/08/2021 15:00, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> > On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > > From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> > >> Its not strictly a depreciation notice though, you are not breaking anything right.
> > >> Since you are not breaking anything, don't think the notice is required in the 21.11 timeframe.
> > >>
> > >> Now if you where doing it in 21.08, it would be an ABI change and that would be a different story.
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking at this!
> > > Yes, it targets to 21.11. The offloading flag is fine, but the shared_group does break ABI, detail:
> > > 	https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/215575.html
> > 
> > Right ... its a new field, not a depreciation as such.
> > What I mean by this is that no existing code is broken.
> > 
> > 21.11 is a new ABI in any case and you are not depreciating anything, so no notice is required.
> 
> Maybe it a new process, confirmed with Thomas, it's expected:
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-changes

I think what Ray means is that it breaks ABI but not API,
so he doesn't consider a notice is required.
My understanding of the policy is that *any* ABI change requires a notice.
But if you want to make it lighter and allow any non-announced ABI change
in an ABI-breaking release, I think I would vote for.

Cc techboard@dpdk.org