[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Jijiang Liu]

Announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf.

Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
---
 doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst |    4 ++++
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index 1c7ab01..f50f0c7 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
@@ -19,3 +19,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
   and table action handlers will be updated:
   the pipeline parameter will be added, the packets mask parameter will be
   either removed (for input port action handler) or made input-only.
+
+* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
+  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI
+  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.
-- 
1.7.7.6

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI
> +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.

Please, more details would be appreciated.
We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Liu, Jijiang]

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM
> To: Liu, Jijiang
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> rte_eth_conf
> 
> 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> > +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2
> does not contain these ABI
> > +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> 
> Please, more details would be appreciated.
> We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.

* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support 
  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure
  (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. 
  and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'.
  The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.

Is it enough clear?

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM
> > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> > rte_eth_conf
> > 
> > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> > > +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2
> > does not contain these ABI
> > > +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> > 
> > Please, more details would be appreciated.
> > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.
> 
> * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support 
>   tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure
>   (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. 
>   and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'.
>   The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> 
> Is it enough clear?

No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is
the purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf.
Ideally, an RFC patch would help.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Liu, Jijiang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:40 AM
> To: Liu, Jijiang
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> rte_eth_conf
> 
> 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM
> > > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> > > rte_eth_conf
> > >
> > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to
> > > > +support
> > > > +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The
> > > > +release 2.2
> > > does not contain these ABI
> > > > +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is
> planned.
> > >
> > > Please, more details would be appreciated.
> > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.
> >
> > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> >   tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the
> rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure
> >   (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf *
> tunnel_conf) API is planned to add.
> >   and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'.
> >   The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will,
> and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> >
> > Is it enough clear?
> 
> No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the
> purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf.
Ok, will do.
> Ideally, an RFC patch would help.
I'm working  on RFC patch, but it probably will miss merge timeslot of this release.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Chilikin, Andrey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu
> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 3:02 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf
> 
> Announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Andrey Chilikin <andrey.chilikin@intel.com>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-12-07 07:47, Liu, Jijiang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM
> > > > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> > > > rte_eth_conf
> > > >
> > > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to
> > > > > +support
> > > > > +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The
> > > > > +release 2.2
> > > > does not contain these ABI
> > > > > +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is
> > planned.
> > > >
> > > > Please, more details would be appreciated.
> > > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.
> > >
> > > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> > >   tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the
> > rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure
> > >   (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf *
> > tunnel_conf) API is planned to add.
> > >   and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'.
> > >   The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will,
> > and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> > >
> > > Is it enough clear?
> > 
> > No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the
> > purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf.
> Ok, will do.
> > Ideally, an RFC patch would help.
> I'm working  on RFC patch, but it probably will miss merge timeslot of this release.

A RFC patch may be incomplete. The API changes are enough.