From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9274A0A0C; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:12:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABD641237; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:12:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9664014F; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:12:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6395C0053; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 09:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:12:46 -0400 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=fm1; bh= doxBslvd3DDqtlHeMUdbbK3WitnBumwx7wZMaQy3d40=; b=tDLsaYeba16z/dm2 QWLKQdbMKM7F1c1GkLULqnSoiw7iokuHf+aGaCnyLfDw6R+XZTlPmpEdhoHyknLL V8QFayWLnuXb2AFR/JRHnVzcaPzrHfiP1f983J/sLNZF2RJIdVn9h89TVF8bUQBz y1keCRc2XkDoE46NDyeg5olVXctnl/c/2xRlV5SuWyFJq3gxvHuTQ9Wi0qlaiHtA l57aa7IxQNfWgBMOFl2/04ez+Odl+6EGRz35RObsayrg3iAwtWrXLR2QXLdXbNE7 R/Yp2prxYYrlp87yiiy/QL1lMXj2h526isB4aNZAFvXcRm76rsd1gjeapEjiEvyz xJcwdg== 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=fm3; bh=doxBslvd3DDqtlHeMUdbbK3WitnBumwx7wZMaQy3d 40=; b=jol7eC5sC5eg0hH33yMAFGxvqu+ztW2i8WQSFLjtuyuLgHqvc3LUQ0Dre p1jwhXMKbkDkyMSx+HTmDRtIGQaimfnA8tKu2cJMepxWJxOyNT1GF2nvvpfhnKVf Uzgwpc1yI507vUuzG7jrtw8/8n3GZJXbzGvRYLRn75bEvp4YiE8hQqelUX/ETtd3 VsjHjBNYN3p4qcqhkbE0+D40cwmjZ/25Nfmz8MIxgPB6WYJrrn2gkQX7VNn24PvD VFnlU0X4HhwExkTtt5Cifa3HNUnZ62KKLhdbetdox4buxeJWCYNnm20YSx2mc1+j pmRGjNiHABgAolPspyZHYkjdoJp9A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrieejgdegfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeffvdffjeeuteelfeeileduudeugfetjeelveefkeejfeeigeehteff vdekfeegudenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdr nhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 09:12:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Kinsella, Ray" , "Xueming(Steven) Li" Cc: dpdk-dev , techboard@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 15:12:44 +0200 Message-ID: <6288309.S2O2uDqRzi@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210623000349.631468-2-xuemingl@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 04/08/2021 15:00, Xueming(Steven) Li: > From: Kinsella, Ray > > On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > From: Kinsella, Ray > > >> 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