Re: [dpdk-dev] How to manage new APIs added after major ABI release?

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 12/11/2019 2:34 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:30:07PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 12/11/2019 1:11 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> With new process, the major ABI releases will be compatible until it is
>>>> deprecated (until next LTS for now),
>>>> like current ABI version is 20 in DPDK_19.11 and DPDK versions until DPDK_20.11
>>>> will be ABI compatible with this version.
>>>>
>>>> But if we introduce a new API after major ABI, say in 20.02 release, are we
>>>> allowed to break the ABI for that API before DPDK_20.11?
>>>>
>>>> If we allow it break, following problem will be observed:
>>>> Assume an application using .so.20.1 library, and using the new API introduced
>>>> in 20.02, lets say foo(),
>>>> but when application switches to .so.20.2 (released via DPDK_20.05), application
>>>> will fail because of ABI breakage in foo().
>>>>
>>>> I think it is fair that application expects forward compatibility in minor
>>>> versions of a shared library.
>>>> Like if application linked against .so.20.2, fair to expect .so.20.3, .so.20.4
>>>> etc will work fine. I think currently only .so.20.0 is fully forward compatible.
>>>>
>>>> If we all agree on this, we may need to tweak the process a little, but before
>>>> diving into implementation details, I would like to be sure we are in same page.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I agree with the assertion.  Once an ABI is fixed, it must be compatible
>>> with all future minor releases subsequent to the fixing of that ABI, until the
>>> next major update.  That is to say, once you release ABI_20, all minor updates
>>> 20.01, 20.02, etc must be compatible with ABI_20 until such time as ABI_21 is
>>> released.
>>
>> There is a slight difference. All minor versions already compatible with ABI_20,
>> like: 20.01, 20.02, 20.03 are ABI compatible with 20.0 (which defines ABI_20).
>>
>> Question is if 20.03 should be compatible with 20.02?
>>
> Yes, as long as that new API was _not_ introduced with the experimental tag,
> then its part of the ABI.
> 
> Its less about defining ABI levels, and more about customer compatibility in my
> mind.
> 
> Regardless of what policy we want to set, if we publish a symbol in a library,
> unless we clearly mark it as being experimental/unstable, consumers of the
> library might use it, and will expect it to be stable for the duragion of that
> libraries major version.
> 
> Thats how consumers expect this to work.  For a given major release, all minor
> releases should function in a simmilar fashion.  If we introduce a new feature
> in a minor release, thats fine, but all subsequent minor releases need to
> maintain that.

+1, thanks.

> 
> Neil
> 
>> This can happen if a new API is introduced in 20.2 and ABI has broken for that
>> API in 20.3, so an ABI compatibility issue created between 20.03 & 20.02,
>> meanwhile both are compatible with ABI_20.
>>
>> I can see two options:
>> a) New APIs are introduced only when we switch to new major ABI version. But if
>> we switch to longer (2 years) ABI compatibility, I think this is unacceptable to
>> wait up to two years to have (non experimental) APIs.
>>
>> b) APIs added in minor version will be part of ABI_20 after that point and same
>> rules will apply to them. Like if and API has introduced in 20.2, it is not
>> allowed to be broken until next major ABI version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
>>
>>