Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] eal/interrupts: avoid direct access to interrupt handle

[Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:29 AM
> To: Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> david.marchand@redhat.com; mdr@ashroe.eu
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] eal/interrupts: avoid direct access to
> interrupt handle
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2021-10-05 17:44 (UTC+0530), Harman Kalra:
> > Making changes to the interrupt framework to use interrupt handle APIs
> > to get/set any field. Direct access to any of the fields should be
> > avoided to avoid any ABI breakage in future.
> 
> How is ABI breakage applicable to internal consumers?
> 
> This protects against fields renaming for sure, but convenience is arguable.
> If EAL needs to add a EAL-private field to struct rte_intr_handle, it must add
> an accessor even though the field is likely OS-specific.
> It would be simpler if the definition was in some private EAL header and
> could be accessed directly by EAL code.

Initially we thought to implement this way only i.e. defining rte_intr_handle inside internal headers
but supporting out of tree drivers was one of the reason to go via this get/set approach. All drivers
internal and external should follow the same way, that was the intention. 

Thanks
Harman