From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3091195A3 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:30:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so136310134wmu.0 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:30:10 -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=xnG9pxppNAflRurbNAosb+IkZF5n5UD0x4ulYA1M5Ac=; b=xCOMOLWlERRJ1LhDvUbNUq+ydmB+dGu8LWr0fTEyZVRgbHo/EAZkmjwTqT5Z7mI2e4 e5Ykqq4PGF18IFmVQ3pVJ5qA+rot4NBY1ok+oBOG/PfDN4mBIVMvtxlM30WPR3jxD1UL nyUjV+fWun22ycJySEkYSr0E6HkY79WaYQ0RkUCcotZBJ6w7wkj8fG4Yh/XDezSasZhr RkbiZ4Gjykl7pZnP0i3CZTDO5PKd+RyG+dyycJeEk9ZqWNM/YGfdRNHo0FmA84Kr8R8+ uGiUfVXcdAt3u53/FxJGmoWmIeyoIgqcTRnAhS8c75WrXNipZ37J357MTWio7V67blR6 rpQQ== 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=xnG9pxppNAflRurbNAosb+IkZF5n5UD0x4ulYA1M5Ac=; b=eK/sIfATFIfOzdZ+0i/dRUdCWbh6kum6kUdfvQ1Ed7FRGDDzgIFMsWY/doRIvHoJU5 o2h7jbbiru7yRoHutKZElu5An5DR8uXgItbRM3dVHrsmj7Ci90ysr9bB8/jX7DVE+Z8d p6LV4ukoeJYWZnqbzmRdR6KbgVayQCPWkMxNfxO2QNvhgNzi1vvn2IdsIsArdyGKSq7H C+0R3EHJN7SW2DySjwoqIs9LGxix/p8DnxAilWvY4Cm3Q0Nz80GihaRjbvKlqvEnRM/G AQm2SD3g8jBRU7LB0PP+eo3Xrt3Oqu9ctkW4CiWzlpJHsty6HoVSCqH5cIg7tzAzVbcP j6/A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmuJ69uD48Gdn1jIILIYnFNnECy5EgYkH3BLn36w0XhijhcaxDzbvg7xDDN1kc0+3gEYB7J X-Received: by 10.195.11.101 with SMTP id eh5mr32809063wjd.104.1449487810003; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gj2sm24816093wjb.40.2015.12.07.03.30.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:30:09 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Panu Matilainen Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:28:57 +0100 Message-ID: <8246076.3G1fmNTuPH@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5665275A.6020308@redhat.com> References: <1449027793-30975-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <2679675.c6cKM9bBsr@xps13> <5665275A.6020308@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] vhost: handle VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE request 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 11:30:10 -0000 2015-12-07 08:29, Panu Matilainen: > On 12/07/2015 01:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-12-02 15:53, Panu Matilainen: > >> This (and other changes in patch 2 breaks the librte_vhost ABI again, so > >> you'd need to at least add a deprecation note to 2.2 to be able to do it > >> in 2.3 at all according to the ABI policy. > >> > >> Perhaps a better option would be adding some padding to the structs now > >> for 2.2 since the vhost ABI is broken there anyway. That would at least > >> give a chance to keep it compatible from 2.2 to 2.3. > > > > Please could you point where the vhost ABI is broken in 2.2? > > > > The vhost ABI break was announced for DPDK 2.2 in commit > 3c848bd7b1c6f4f681b833322a748fdefbb5fb2d: [...] > So the ABI process was properly followed, except for actually bumping > LIBABIVER. Bumping LIBABIVER is mentioned in > doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst but it doesn't specify *when* > this should be done, eg should the first patch breaking the ABI bump it > or should it done be shortly before the next stable release, or > something else. As it is, it seems a bit too easy to simply forget. I thought it was not needed to explicitly say that commits must be atomic and we do not have to wait to do the required changes. In this case, I've missed it when reviewing the vhost patches breaking the ABI.