RE: [PATCH] eal: introduce atomics abstraction

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1785 bytes --]

Hi Ben,

 

Only bug fixes are backported to LTS. Not even new NIC drivers are backported.

 

Reference: https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/stable.html#what-changes-should-be-backported <https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/stable.html#what-changes-should-be-backported> 

 

-Morten

 

From: Ben Magistro [mailto:koncept1@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 13 February 2023 17.47



 

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

	On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:28:40AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
	>    There is a thread discussing a change to the standard [1] but I have
	>    not seen anything explicit yet about moving to C11.  I am personally in
	>    favor of making the jump to C11 now as part of the 23.x branch and
	>    provided my thoughts in the linked thread (what other projects using
	>    DPDK have as minimum compiler requirements, CentOS 7 EOL dates).
	>    Is the long term plan to backport this change set to the existing LTS
	>    release or is this meant to be something introduced for use in 23.x and
	>    going forward?  I think I was (probably naively) assuming this would be
	>    a new feature in the 23.x going forward only.
	>    [1] [1]http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262188.html
	> 
	We don't bump requirements for older LTS releases, so any change to minimum
	required versions would only be for the 23.x series releases

 

I meant the atomics change set, I should have been clearer in that question, my apologies.  If the atomic work is planned to be backported, the question of if/when the C11 standard would be adopted seems less relevant since it would need to be supported for DPDK versions that do not have the C11 standard requirement too.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5507 bytes --]