From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36279A0524; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 21:20:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE59C1C014; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 21:20:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E881BFFA for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 21:20:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AB4220B8; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:20:06 -0500 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=mesmtp; bh=zTLUQ18USM8tq+aIJI/fjWU8avL1wu29UOec5JR6x3M=; b=KVCSuX8Ml/IO mZuyhCYAevusBW8TMoh+HIVnMW7Q8ONbJF4Tl1tDtle65zzb++t6rKKqaOMro8cl Aian2a/4vei5Ti5lJhyL5CP/hTia2YfzVwUJyRRWEzXLCgMa9LT9cF/tyUq7lCUp ayjRRrEm06JenY+zPwIkStD7pG/Ywmk= 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=fm1; bh=zTLUQ18USM8tq+aIJI/fjWU8avL1wu29UOec5JR6x 3M=; b=GE1np3xu9MhtoiA+nd7YJQZi4BOS7VxXdVsQw3SHCqu9iEBIY2y6OqQRf GcfpSHu9yep5r4ZSgtkaGLZkviYDhtMCmkOsoYAhG9loEq2vZE/sDqFERu0JwRZy EDZ4Zem5I00tMldnypIFwqj4FjMW+kn1tMD9Iti1lR7t0BBVu4P1MNaZQbE7bAI0 heOPadRG+5u/YkAaccxBBmnp90e/i7jGngB+jdq24GHCaD3YYLWqKu1GaiO0SsGv /GZ1SwZ7HkdfFGPZ70p6ZDyuKZfZi45++mvk1ru+hJXHq5fzHYx1LwrCW7MhpcWj E4JZDs7ebIN5RT6hPHYr8my19v1FQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrfeekgddufeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B305E3060B66; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:20:04 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Luca Boccassi , Eelco Chaudron Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Neil Horman , Cristian Dumitrescu , dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , Ian Stokes , Andrzej Ostruszka Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 21:20:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2254274.n0HT0TaD9V@xps> In-Reply-To: <7465A5AB-87B6-465F-B794-799D562566BE@redhat.com> References: <20200129122953.2016199-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <3a08271e0d811359f7dc1cc732b6bdc89cc98a4e.camel@debian.org> <7465A5AB-87B6-465F-B794-799D562566BE@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] meter: fix ABI break due to experimental tag removal X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" 30/01/2020 17:15, Eelco Chaudron: > On 30 Jan 2020, at 17:04, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 16:55 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 30/01/2020 15:21, Luca Boccassi: > >>> On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 15:17 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> 30/01/2020 13:57, Luca Boccassi: > >>>>> On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 13:33 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I disagree with the need of this patch. > >>>>>> The symbol was experimental, meaning we can change it. > >>>>>> Removing experimental tag is not an ABI break. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> This symbol change was requested for backport in 19.11.x, and > >>>>> experimental or not I'm not too keen on backward incompatible > >>>>> changes > >>>>> to the public interface in an _LTS point release_. The > >>>>> compromise > >>>>> was > >>>>> to see if we could support both symbols version, which makes > >>>>> the > >>>>> change > >>>>> backward compatible. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you prefer not to have this patch in mainline I'm also fine > >>>>> in > >>>>> taking it just for the LTS. I agree with you that it is not > >>>>> required > >>>>> for mainline releases (although nicer for me if it's a backport > >>>>> rather > >>>>> than a new change). > >>>> > >>>> I would like to avoid opening the door for maintaining the > >>>> experimental ABI > >>>> in the mainline. Please take it directly in the LTS. > >>>> > >>>> The next question is to know whether we really want to have such > >>>> patch in LTS. > >>>> Anyway, 19.11.0 has this symbol as experimental. > >>>> How adding a non-experimental version of the function in 19.11.1 > >>>> will > >>>> change > >>>> the ABI status of the whole 19.11 branch? > >>> > >>> The problem is not adding the new symbol, but removing the > >>> experimental > >>> one. Changing the version of the symbol was requested by OVS for > >>> inclusion in 19.11. > >> > >> Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. > >> Given 19.11.0 already has the symbol as experimental, > >> and that applications like OVS had to accept it as experimental, > >> why removing experimental tag in 19.11.1? > > > > I think it was mentioned that it was preferred not to suppress the > > compiler warning to avoid any accidental use in the future, but the=20 > > OVS > > maintainer(s) should answer as I might remember wrongly. >=20 > Yes this is the reason, OVS compiles with -Werror so we would like to=20 > avoid the warnings. You can not disable them per include, it=E2=80=99s gl= obal=20 > for all of DPDK. Yes but anyway OVS must accept the experimental function as the next release will use it with DPDK 19.11.0.