Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

04/08/2021 15:53, Kinsella, Ray:
> On 04/08/2021 14:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 04/08/2021 15:00, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> >> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>> On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> >>>> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>>> 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.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying Thomas ... you are correct.

In the meantime, let's review and ack notices, even if ABI-only change:
https://patches.dpdk.org/bundle/tmonjalo/deprecation-notices/

We'll discuss later if we can accept more ABI change,
but we should try to be on the safe side for those already announced.