From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612949585 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:41:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so146808695wme.0 for ; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 19:41:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=RKR9M0Vel+tLFGp+iGV1Ppl5LL2RSb5krynmUyiEong=; b=iqNepqCr2rXb5KFgq5yCf5Nlw/yhrP7dL6lVrSbnnR9aC1vJUdkqL7GhSo2TNGpbS2 eaRAL9mLOnryKxKbvU6V4vmFY3SF1678rYmImoiAoHz9lpgwjDBAcG2lZYm62UXtibei mGzTrBmZU+6zlge8V1KqHcvC3wGoY6t4RYndbEY/81LTwYzK1IDflvBlm8Sq2Z4RAPX9 x8NgOj1fDZAW2+THpqwI1wH85MW0CaCPngbDKf9KEccvW96UnIzWVaNfxBvr26R4wvcr VFHM6CXfHXCoNn0GD1h0w4CYzcFHU2/HZN5pgEUa+0ho7cnJO9CnCBgc2/qDGFkf9N9J w4ZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=RKR9M0Vel+tLFGp+iGV1Ppl5LL2RSb5krynmUyiEong=; b=QpYdr1W6uO/p9NMI2uZT9VegXbRfO4b2rbFoJGdsspA0VZfyRjMiRb31seoJRBzp8N uNA4+D/3Hbc1SOawkUd1zet9Ckd0KXrx6YnbqMIWn1Ba2/0Q2E0AxEEBXulf/fHAJWPI R0d7sEneVdKQEtZAYrTG5EoJ2IsqslIXjWLvJ591VmlwmLcLB2Zw3pcBf1IdzuhWNEUA XLhiEGe8/g0EDf/+yjmQLxekueODa7A6FwjTRt7/f4EmG1Ivzk3srVxfHLiTdZlBQA73 GghNqIqLYzNVl782MAr3m5QbaBD5OouFskC3FX8uH1dzs3Ghek76IwDih4RAtN+AuRCA xVkw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjL2ZOhWiwjfQ9CnBdn+ny/47lrJCRY4i+zb6vIW66GVjN8l0uTGE8wnSQHQ+bbByvL9GF X-Received: by 10.194.89.226 with SMTP id br2mr34523716wjb.22.1449459695267; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 19:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z66sm14635610wmz.7.2015.12.06.19.41.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Dec 2015 19:41:34 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Liu, Jijiang" Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:40:23 +0100 Message-ID: <3679869.2UDrnTTX50@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC22BE50BE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1449457307-15206-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <9803987.ILZ5mdRcVm@xps13> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC22BE50BE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:41:35 -0000 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.