From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6251B3D8; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:02:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id y197so3108601wmd.0; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent:mime-version; bh=r/cnzKD4Zlm4vYWEOTzY2dyG80A4BmyfZDYsLetZxy4=; b=fhU3MqoEVeVV3j9Ra7WFP3rrb7GAsuHhbWIyLTiIVTpKC6+xw3qvQxiDzlhwcJK0ik XMcXzkOMY7kng2i3tb6pPw/6JOvydQDnOgwck6UEm7R1iAB1i43giaTQ5u64jlzq0hYJ /YYp6npZFpu/dJqoi+HNVPGL/yL4y9Wycw6ZSXXIozvTQKnpFNMi4XhvhpjqNKlwrfiD i/Eh5R5EdsbvEjDAiNfwd/QI428m5I7PwvLsGnYvY/SHrs87/+lzqAJef+34+duO5z64 CRkEp3ju5f541YnYnRn496gs32lJ2d278wfRsUxCBYrOGkCLl3JuPEOJQ9Pi/6+jgXXR IAlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVkEyOsTOUl5stm4qJlVVCq5FS137HHqmNsg7/++2KKfgosnRC OMuZwtQqwt7i1nLtmhIKrC8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAMGI6sPxmlrqLg3LpZD5zHUQcxPADNVdHxZTku8hLsGcR7jVAyBkiDaFh54ynhfSGB/ewhw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c053:: with SMTP id u19mr4057865wmc.63.1554379337547; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:f419:6f00:250:b6ff:feb7:bd60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm25843137wrr.93.2019.04.04.05.02.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ec2c98004ef5d693d0e033c93820580bbd2ebfa.camel@debian.org> From: Luca Boccassi To: Bruce Richardson , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, Kevin Traynor , "techboard@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:02:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <94df3cc4-de54-72d6-84c6-81bebd209a81@intel.com> <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:02:18 -0000 On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 11:54 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > >=20 > > > Recently I started a discussion with the DPDK Technical Board on > > > DPDK > > > ABI/API stability. This was born out informal feedback I had > > > received > > > from a number of users of DPDK about ABI churn. In turn this > > > feedback > > > then prompted an ABI analysis of DPDK using tools from abi- > > > laboratory. > > >=20 > > > https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Ddpdk > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I guess the short story is that DPDK ABI hasn't really settled > > > down as > > > the project has matured. If you take a look at the =E2=80=9CBackward > > > Compat.=E2=80=9D > > > column which measures ABI compatibility compared to the previous > > > releases, you will see significant churn in the ABI over > > > successive > > > releases since v16.04. > > >=20 > > > Now compare DPDK to GStreamer as an example of a very mature > > > project > > > with a similar intent, a framework for building applications, and > > > which > > > enjoys a very stable API. > > >=20 > > > https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Dgstreamer > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > The DPDK ABI churn has the following affects for users:- > > >=20 > > > 1. The churn obliges users of DPDK to commit to a constant > > > re-integration and re-validation effort for new versions of DPDK. > > > This > > > effort from their perspective may not add value to their > > > consuming > > > project, particular if they are only updating to "stay current". > > > 2. The churn encourages users of DPDK to slip versions, putting > > > off > > > reintegration to later, building up technical debt and causing > > > their > > > projects to miss support for new hardware or features. > > > 3. It makes DPDK different to almost every other system library > > > and > > > framework that an operating systems might ship. This makes DPDK > > > trickier > > > to dynamically link against, package and maintain for OS > > > maintainers. > > >=20 > > > In order to address this issue, I have put together the minimal > > > set of > > > concrete proposals below for discussion at the Technical Board > > > next > > > Wednesday. > > >=20 > > > I wanted to share this, as these might not yet be the right > > > proposals, > > > however I am putting them out there for feedback to start the > > > discussion. > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > > >=20 > > > Ray K > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Experimental API > > > 1. APIs designated as experimental are not considered part > > > of the ABI > > > and may change without warning at any time. > > > 2. APIs designated as experimental must be marked > > > depreciated for a > > > least one quarterly release before removal. > > > 3. APIs designated as experimental will no longer > > > automatically graduate > > > to core after one release, they may stay experimental until their > > > author > > > and the maintainer agree that graduation is appropriate. > > >=20 > > > Core API (non-experimental API) > > > 4. APIs designated as core must be depreciated for a least > > > two years > > > before removal, to facilitate the continued compatibility with > > > LTS > > > releases. A final removal notice will be published to the DPDK > > > Mailing > > > List, and if there are no strong objections only then an API may > > > be > > > removed. > > > 5. APIs designated as core may be changed as follows:- > > > 5.a The change proposer must demonstrated that the change > > > has a > > > supporting use case and could not be achieved in any other way. > > > 5.b ABI version compatibility must be retained, as > > > described below. > >=20 > > Hi Ray, > >=20 > > My somewhat rambly 2 cents :) > >=20 > > While i think some solution has to be found for the situation, we > > also have > > to balance this against speed of development and new features > > rollout. > >=20 > > For example, let's consider what i am intimately familiar with - > > the memory > > rework. I have made enormous efforts to ensure that pre-18.05 and > > post-18.05 > > remain as ABI/API compatible as possible, but there were a couple > > of API > > calls that were removed, and there couldn't have been any > > replacements > > (these API's were exposing internal structures that shouldn't have > > been > > exposed in the first place), and 18.05 also broke the ABI > > compatibility, > > because there was no way to do it without it (shared internal > > structures > > needed to change in part to support multiprocess). > >=20 > > So, if i understand your proposal correctly, assuming a 2-year > > waiting > > period for the deprecation of core API's, you would essentially > > still be > > waiting for the memory rework to land for a year more. Moreover, > > even > > *after* it has landed, there was a continuous stream of > > improvements and > > bugfixes, some of which has broke ABI compatibility as well. Some > > of them > > were my fault (as in, i could've foreseen the need for those > > changes, but > > didn't), but others came as a result of people using these new > > features in > > the wild and reporting issues/problems/suggestions - i am but one > > man, after > > all. Plus, you know, there's only 24 hours in a day, and some stuff > > takes > > time to implement :) > >=20 > > Since this rework goes right at the heart of DPDK (arguably there > > isn't a > > more "core" API than memory!), there is no (sane) way in the > > universe to 1) > > keep backwards compatibility for this, or 2) keep two parallel > > versions of > > it. We also need to test all that, and, to be honest, one > > validation cycle > > for a release wouldn't be enough to figure out all of the kinks and > > implications of such a case. It was really great that memory rework > > has > > landed in 18.05 and we had time to improve and prepare it for an > > 18.11 LTS - > > i think everyone can say that it's in much better shape in 18.11 > > than it was > > in 18.05, but if we couldn't do an ABI break here or there, this > > rate of > > improvements would have slowed down significantly. > >=20 > > Now, i understand that this is probably a highly exceptional case, > > but i'm > > sure that maintainers of other parts of DPDK will have their own > > examples of > > similar things happening. > >=20 > > I have no idea what a proper solution would look like. Any > > "splitting" of > > the trees into "experimental" vs. "stable" will end up causing the > > same > > issue - people choose to use stable over experimental because, > > well, it's > > more stable, and new/experimental features don't get tested as much > > because > > no one runs the thing in the first place. > >=20 > > TL;DR we have to be careful not to constrain the pace of > > development/bugfixing just for the sake of having a stable API/ABI > > :) > >=20 >=20 > Actually, I think we *do* need to constrain the pace of development > for the > sake of ABI stability. At this stage DPDK has been around for quite a > number of years and so should be considered a fairly mature project - > it > should just start acting like it. >=20 > Now, in terms of features like the memory rework, that is indeed a > case > that there was no alternative other than a massive ABI break. > However, for > that rework there was a strong need for improvement in that area that > we > can make the case for an ABI break to support it - and it is of a > scale > that nothing other than an ABI change would do. For other areas and > examples, I doubt there are many in the last couple of years that are > of > that scale. Fully agree. It's normal for new project, big and small, to start without a stability promise as development ramps up, and then steer toward stability as the user base grows. Sometimes the switch is made explicit by crossing from a 0.x to a 1.x version numbering, sometimes it's not. I don't think we crossed that boundary yet in this project, and I believe that's the main question Ray was trying to raise: has the time finally come for DPDK to do this phase shift? Of course it comes with a price for all developers, and that's again common. > My thoughts on the matter are: > 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data > structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should > reduce > the scope for ABI breaks. Yes, I'm a big fan of accessors and opaque structs. > 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in > the > rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I > want us > to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up > by all > linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. >=20 > I'm not sure I like the idea of planned ABI break releases - that > strikes > me as a plan where we end up with the same number of ABI breaks as > before, > just balled into one release. I think that was intended as a compromise, especially as we move from one model to the other, and more of a "if a breakage has to happen, it must be in the X release" rather than "let's always break in the X release" :-) > Question for Kevin, Luca and others who look at distro-packaging: is > it the > case that each distro will only ship one version of DPDK, or is it > possible > that if we have ABI breaks, a distro will provide two copies of DPDK > simultaneously, e.g. a 19.11 ABI version and a 20.11 ABI version? We can ship multiple versions, although it's more work so there should be a good reason to do it. At the moment in Debian and Ubuntu we don't, and we tend to ship whatever the latest LTS version is at the distro freeze milestone - for example Debian 10 which will be released soon (TM) will have 18.11.0. > So, in short, I'm generally in favour of a zero-tolerance approach > for DPDK > ABI breaks, and having ABI breaks as a major event reserved only for > massive rework changes, such as major mbuf changes, or new memory > layout or > similar. >=20 > Regards, > /Bruce >=20 --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA12A0679 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:02:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DE31B3DA; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:02:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6251B3D8; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:02:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id y197so3108601wmd.0; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent:mime-version; bh=r/cnzKD4Zlm4vYWEOTzY2dyG80A4BmyfZDYsLetZxy4=; b=fhU3MqoEVeVV3j9Ra7WFP3rrb7GAsuHhbWIyLTiIVTpKC6+xw3qvQxiDzlhwcJK0ik XMcXzkOMY7kng2i3tb6pPw/6JOvydQDnOgwck6UEm7R1iAB1i43giaTQ5u64jlzq0hYJ /YYp6npZFpu/dJqoi+HNVPGL/yL4y9Wycw6ZSXXIozvTQKnpFNMi4XhvhpjqNKlwrfiD i/Eh5R5EdsbvEjDAiNfwd/QI428m5I7PwvLsGnYvY/SHrs87/+lzqAJef+34+duO5z64 CRkEp3ju5f541YnYnRn496gs32lJ2d278wfRsUxCBYrOGkCLl3JuPEOJQ9Pi/6+jgXXR IAlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVkEyOsTOUl5stm4qJlVVCq5FS137HHqmNsg7/++2KKfgosnRC OMuZwtQqwt7i1nLtmhIKrC8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAMGI6sPxmlrqLg3LpZD5zHUQcxPADNVdHxZTku8hLsGcR7jVAyBkiDaFh54ynhfSGB/ewhw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c053:: with SMTP id u19mr4057865wmc.63.1554379337547; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:f419:6f00:250:b6ff:feb7:bd60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm25843137wrr.93.2019.04.04.05.02.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ec2c98004ef5d693d0e033c93820580bbd2ebfa.camel@debian.org> From: Luca Boccassi To: Bruce Richardson , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, Kevin Traynor , "techboard@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:02:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <94df3cc4-de54-72d6-84c6-81bebd209a81@intel.com> <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability 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" Message-ID: <20190404120215.VLcBMvrheJXHs5bxVmOaSLFQ_LI5GVDkJZrz4NpNZCs@z> On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 11:54 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > >=20 > > > Recently I started a discussion with the DPDK Technical Board on > > > DPDK > > > ABI/API stability. This was born out informal feedback I had > > > received > > > from a number of users of DPDK about ABI churn. In turn this > > > feedback > > > then prompted an ABI analysis of DPDK using tools from abi- > > > laboratory. > > >=20 > > > https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Ddpdk > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I guess the short story is that DPDK ABI hasn't really settled > > > down as > > > the project has matured. If you take a look at the =E2=80=9CBackward > > > Compat.=E2=80=9D > > > column which measures ABI compatibility compared to the previous > > > releases, you will see significant churn in the ABI over > > > successive > > > releases since v16.04. > > >=20 > > > Now compare DPDK to GStreamer as an example of a very mature > > > project > > > with a similar intent, a framework for building applications, and > > > which > > > enjoys a very stable API. > > >=20 > > > https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Dgstreamer > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > The DPDK ABI churn has the following affects for users:- > > >=20 > > > 1. The churn obliges users of DPDK to commit to a constant > > > re-integration and re-validation effort for new versions of DPDK. > > > This > > > effort from their perspective may not add value to their > > > consuming > > > project, particular if they are only updating to "stay current". > > > 2. The churn encourages users of DPDK to slip versions, putting > > > off > > > reintegration to later, building up technical debt and causing > > > their > > > projects to miss support for new hardware or features. > > > 3. It makes DPDK different to almost every other system library > > > and > > > framework that an operating systems might ship. This makes DPDK > > > trickier > > > to dynamically link against, package and maintain for OS > > > maintainers. > > >=20 > > > In order to address this issue, I have put together the minimal > > > set of > > > concrete proposals below for discussion at the Technical Board > > > next > > > Wednesday. > > >=20 > > > I wanted to share this, as these might not yet be the right > > > proposals, > > > however I am putting them out there for feedback to start the > > > discussion. > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > > >=20 > > > Ray K > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Experimental API > > > 1. APIs designated as experimental are not considered part > > > of the ABI > > > and may change without warning at any time. > > > 2. APIs designated as experimental must be marked > > > depreciated for a > > > least one quarterly release before removal. > > > 3. APIs designated as experimental will no longer > > > automatically graduate > > > to core after one release, they may stay experimental until their > > > author > > > and the maintainer agree that graduation is appropriate. > > >=20 > > > Core API (non-experimental API) > > > 4. APIs designated as core must be depreciated for a least > > > two years > > > before removal, to facilitate the continued compatibility with > > > LTS > > > releases. A final removal notice will be published to the DPDK > > > Mailing > > > List, and if there are no strong objections only then an API may > > > be > > > removed. > > > 5. APIs designated as core may be changed as follows:- > > > 5.a The change proposer must demonstrated that the change > > > has a > > > supporting use case and could not be achieved in any other way. > > > 5.b ABI version compatibility must be retained, as > > > described below. > >=20 > > Hi Ray, > >=20 > > My somewhat rambly 2 cents :) > >=20 > > While i think some solution has to be found for the situation, we > > also have > > to balance this against speed of development and new features > > rollout. > >=20 > > For example, let's consider what i am intimately familiar with - > > the memory > > rework. I have made enormous efforts to ensure that pre-18.05 and > > post-18.05 > > remain as ABI/API compatible as possible, but there were a couple > > of API > > calls that were removed, and there couldn't have been any > > replacements > > (these API's were exposing internal structures that shouldn't have > > been > > exposed in the first place), and 18.05 also broke the ABI > > compatibility, > > because there was no way to do it without it (shared internal > > structures > > needed to change in part to support multiprocess). > >=20 > > So, if i understand your proposal correctly, assuming a 2-year > > waiting > > period for the deprecation of core API's, you would essentially > > still be > > waiting for the memory rework to land for a year more. Moreover, > > even > > *after* it has landed, there was a continuous stream of > > improvements and > > bugfixes, some of which has broke ABI compatibility as well. Some > > of them > > were my fault (as in, i could've foreseen the need for those > > changes, but > > didn't), but others came as a result of people using these new > > features in > > the wild and reporting issues/problems/suggestions - i am but one > > man, after > > all. Plus, you know, there's only 24 hours in a day, and some stuff > > takes > > time to implement :) > >=20 > > Since this rework goes right at the heart of DPDK (arguably there > > isn't a > > more "core" API than memory!), there is no (sane) way in the > > universe to 1) > > keep backwards compatibility for this, or 2) keep two parallel > > versions of > > it. We also need to test all that, and, to be honest, one > > validation cycle > > for a release wouldn't be enough to figure out all of the kinks and > > implications of such a case. It was really great that memory rework > > has > > landed in 18.05 and we had time to improve and prepare it for an > > 18.11 LTS - > > i think everyone can say that it's in much better shape in 18.11 > > than it was > > in 18.05, but if we couldn't do an ABI break here or there, this > > rate of > > improvements would have slowed down significantly. > >=20 > > Now, i understand that this is probably a highly exceptional case, > > but i'm > > sure that maintainers of other parts of DPDK will have their own > > examples of > > similar things happening. > >=20 > > I have no idea what a proper solution would look like. Any > > "splitting" of > > the trees into "experimental" vs. "stable" will end up causing the > > same > > issue - people choose to use stable over experimental because, > > well, it's > > more stable, and new/experimental features don't get tested as much > > because > > no one runs the thing in the first place. > >=20 > > TL;DR we have to be careful not to constrain the pace of > > development/bugfixing just for the sake of having a stable API/ABI > > :) > >=20 >=20 > Actually, I think we *do* need to constrain the pace of development > for the > sake of ABI stability. At this stage DPDK has been around for quite a > number of years and so should be considered a fairly mature project - > it > should just start acting like it. >=20 > Now, in terms of features like the memory rework, that is indeed a > case > that there was no alternative other than a massive ABI break. > However, for > that rework there was a strong need for improvement in that area that > we > can make the case for an ABI break to support it - and it is of a > scale > that nothing other than an ABI change would do. For other areas and > examples, I doubt there are many in the last couple of years that are > of > that scale. Fully agree. It's normal for new project, big and small, to start without a stability promise as development ramps up, and then steer toward stability as the user base grows. Sometimes the switch is made explicit by crossing from a 0.x to a 1.x version numbering, sometimes it's not. I don't think we crossed that boundary yet in this project, and I believe that's the main question Ray was trying to raise: has the time finally come for DPDK to do this phase shift? Of course it comes with a price for all developers, and that's again common. > My thoughts on the matter are: > 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data > structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should > reduce > the scope for ABI breaks. Yes, I'm a big fan of accessors and opaque structs. > 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in > the > rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I > want us > to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up > by all > linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. >=20 > I'm not sure I like the idea of planned ABI break releases - that > strikes > me as a plan where we end up with the same number of ABI breaks as > before, > just balled into one release. I think that was intended as a compromise, especially as we move from one model to the other, and more of a "if a breakage has to happen, it must be in the X release" rather than "let's always break in the X release" :-) > Question for Kevin, Luca and others who look at distro-packaging: is > it the > case that each distro will only ship one version of DPDK, or is it > possible > that if we have ABI breaks, a distro will provide two copies of DPDK > simultaneously, e.g. a 19.11 ABI version and a 20.11 ABI version? We can ship multiple versions, although it's more work so there should be a good reason to do it. At the moment in Debian and Ubuntu we don't, and we tend to ship whatever the latest LTS version is at the distro freeze milestone - for example Debian 10 which will be released soon (TM) will have 18.11.0. > So, in short, I'm generally in favour of a zero-tolerance approach > for DPDK > ABI breaks, and having ABI breaks as a major event reserved only for > massive rework changes, such as major mbuf changes, or new memory > layout or > similar. >=20 > Regards, > /Bruce >=20 --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi