From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BD1C492 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:40:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 128so28717322wmz.1 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:40:06 -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=pl7fqr+vNQylAx/0qtCG018vx+6wKCzk5ktK+UvpewI=; b=AwGw1srG6DLed0NQb1TJ8BOY26DzuvmeGtoNzm/AQiwPCd7UI3mt8wXVGCiaXyJCbY W29eunS65cYjRcusxgLu+ggz9NboptPyobJ0xKo97mCXqXoXILRCGln0Uf/dCSbBMlBE KGc98/ERY2lfNNiDxIBZK9KCd5GZmuzbEzquh5BGBwIi/Dw0EoZBkawnkXEDNzHiaFVf MU9ONWxCcx1mn3UJ7BDc2Fp2pb5WriUXJWY+IJAzQMa2yCfXSZ0ZYYocwkKQm5ezXe3I +Lgu9+L5N47y7TTf5MMywsrUgrVU6ohegOw6qFCKHMTt5evXMvw5D3WD5Gep5LEOG7B4 L0jA== 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=pl7fqr+vNQylAx/0qtCG018vx+6wKCzk5ktK+UvpewI=; b=KVy4qYwT8d6KH1ZBB6xjGN+uAiqEGuW07HPhLoHXIlwQ9K0Q9VXSQVPDyhB2xU9Fu5 k6QN5HpURlj6syyWWni3ZVvnfLXX+eoWRr+wjlL+wiJpYdKdSoN/u1+zIroTpp8dbTYO i/7kBtUnocilA7oCywYyHThlyuZNW/6mfJ0xeKsSiy7eA2pKuR10MTSvazaSNIEBOVar 4HZeWoSS/4Lr/yhn2m6cN7gNCZkEFmMZ7HNB5eYbaEZ1aqg0q/24iLznWx5p2ocW/UpA w5Ndnh0vQqmDvN48LGNcp811W5BOVcRmahdJKEaVF7kfeMKkgcSYGZwBJml6CUNX8th7 e6rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQBq1lR34JrHUGRaBv6b5wDPJ+R5f9sqIN+nPWgPBxyPhMgLcT1bUJ/Hyx3OzXMJBVQ X-Received: by 10.194.103.164 with SMTP id fx4mr5327380wjb.56.1454017206571; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e194sm4531236wma.19.2016.01.28.13.40.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:40:05 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Panu Matilainen , Stephen Hemminger Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:38:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3789219.tMSa25XPXU@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <56964186.1060800@redhat.com> References: <1451357606-117892-1-git-send-email-ziye.yang@intel.com> <20160113115503.GC7216@bricha3-MOBL3> <56964186.1060800@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ziye Yang Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: Add the class_id support in pci probe 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: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:40:06 -0000 2016-01-13 14:22, Panu Matilainen: > On 01/13/2016 01:55 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:12:14AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:53:26 +0800 > >> Ziye Yang wrote: > >> > >>> This patch is used to add the class_id support > >>> for pci_probe since some devices need the class_info > >>> (class_code, subclass_code, programming_interface) > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ziye Yang > >> > >> Since rte_pci is exposed to application this breaks the ABI. > > > > But applications are not going to be defining rte_pci_ids values internally, are > > they? That is for drivers to use. Is this really an ABI breakage for applications that we > > need to be concerned about? > > There might not be applications using it but drivers are ABI consumers > too - think of 3rd party drivers and such. Drivers are not ABI consumers in the sense that ABI means Application Binary Interface. We are talking about drivers interface here. When establishing the ABI policy we were discussing about applications only. I agree we must allow 3rd party drivers but there is no good reason to try to upgrade DPDK without upgrading/porting the external drivers. If someone does not want to release its driver and keep upgrading DPDK, it is acceptable IMHO to force an upgrade of its driver.