DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re:  ABI and inline functions
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:23:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3a1ca7e-8afb-dd42-ff6a-ffbf227e6474@ashroe.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB24241F838D93162AE0F2F559C8260@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>



On 18/04/2019 06:56, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:21 AM
>> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
>> Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
>> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Ray Kinsella
>> <mdr@ashroe.eu>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI and inline functions
>>> I would value ABI compatibility much higher than API compatibility.
>>>> If someone is recompiling the application anyway, making a couple of
>>>> small changes (large rework is obviously a different issue) to the
>>>> code should not be a massive issue, I hope. On the other hand, ABI
>>>> compatibility is needed to allow seamless update from one version to
>>>> another, and it's that ABI compatiblity that allows distro's to pick up our
>> latest and greatest versions.
>>>
>>> IMO, We have two primary use case for DPDK
>>>
>>> 1) NFV kind of use case 	where the application needs to run on multiple
>> platform
>>> without recompiling it.
>>> 2) Fixed appliance use case where embed SoC like Intel Denverton or
>>> ARM64 integrated Controller used. For fixed appliance use case, end
>>> user care more of performance than ABI compatibility as it easy to
>>> recompile the end user application vs the cost of hitting performance impact.
>>
>> Nobody cares about compatiablity until they have to the first security update.
> 
> For fixed appliance case, The update(FW update) will be  a single blob which
> Include all the components. So they can back port the security fix and recompile
> the sw as needed.
> 
> The very similar category  is DPDK running in smart NICs(Runs as FW in PCIe EP device).

So is there a real versus a perceived compromise happen here - that we
are compromising optimal performance in order to make API stability
happen? Do we have specific an examples that this is actually the case?

Thanks,

Ray K

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-23 14:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-17  5:12 [dpdk-dev] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-17  5:12 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-17  8:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-17  8:36   ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-17 16:52   ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 16:52     ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 17:46   ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-17 17:46     ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-17 18:51     ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-17 18:51       ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-18  5:56       ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-18  5:56         ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-23 14:23         ` Ray Kinsella [this message]
2019-04-23 14:23           ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 18:38           ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-24 18:38             ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-04-23 14:19       ` [dpdk-dev] " Ray Kinsella
2019-04-23 14:19         ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-18  4:34   ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-18  4:34     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-18 10:28     ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-18 10:28       ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-23 14:12       ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-23 14:12         ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24  5:15         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24  5:15           ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24 11:08         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 11:08           ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 12:22           ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 12:22             ` Ray Kinsella
2019-04-24 12:54             ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 12:54               ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-24 15:44               ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-24 15:44                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-04-30  8:52             ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-30  8:52               ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-24  5:08       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24  5:08         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-04-24  8:49         ` Bruce Richardson
2019-04-24  8:49           ` Bruce Richardson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c3a1ca7e-8afb-dd42-ff6a-ffbf227e6474@ashroe.eu \
    --to=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).