From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8FDA04B5 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CE8C9F0; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:07:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842BAC9EC for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:07:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3B95C003E; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:07:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= sxXb00zxnRJ2PyDoTbKH5Rp4Gv0b0+xEkQNs9mwy6/I=; b=Ph596uoMn+NQg412 CjyE+wO0UifS08meX3nMk66zA0DYiGbxHqsVDzqo5rUEs+g5+DSOvAGqho9uvy8C sP7FzrwVZA5HgQEUxmRC0sx5PK0W62n7Cl2+Pv+bgIjoUM3NezeZVl7WZTaKveL2 fy5Yqs4yPVHDgKYxVzI+gIqFrmc4Ucd1GhETu20q4AfAAPiuVQceC6+DebJhkbrT aNyKLHrgX7p1rEtki8KTqKrpviRVTQ2egmkaOhlmR/WQmDoTL02IXikMU6dDKzh7 a0ICNnd86WiHtp4aGamJAkLow0Mm8qpNe8QuiBRcx9iL7yfKO5rP1+gEMFpwsH/t lD5VMw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=sxXb00zxnRJ2PyDoTbKH5Rp4Gv0b0+xEkQNs9mwy6 /I=; b=E+UE32PIJ+MOMKdzv1FMAHMQkEmr4yJedGDL0Phgq0Bw4Dd8nN/JeIhGk ltquYGpVXVPvHAzwF5ybzFBrLgHypSsC08HtSTbEIoyHghTCDlRHq8zdVJXxZ8yC 0UjpwNG0Hwapu0UD/WybFAOc4TKAEbHEZDcRL0fKSO0/pjhx+4LDiuIwyYlGNFJZ D3UiPrVQC/g+FRGrX9eg+vZueREBZ8iXjCBrZkhzuH5lRHztIvqKmAGCxquocvSP fWyjYXFdETrXD3slEKWpH9F//N0hwmOSzZSOt6CDwe23IVetCVPBQ19rYz10XSiw GUgUjr2HMd/vKiFu29/QdMKwP9FHw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrleefgddugeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrd dvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf rhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E44193280063; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:07:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Alexander Kotliarov Cc: users@dpdk.org, Ray Kinsella , david.marchand@redhat.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:07:38 +0100 Message-ID: <3222028.xZJDvd7WxQ@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Changes to DPDK kmod drivers / backward compatibility within LTS rel. X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" 24/09/2020 19:12, Alexander Kotliarov: > Hi there! > I would like to find out what is the policy regarding changes to the DPDK's > kmod drivers such as igb_uio.ko within a DPDK's LTS release. Are these > changes backward compatible? > For example, is there a guarantee that an application built > against 19.11.5, where igb_uio.ko received changes,would run with this > driver built from 19.11.1 version? > > Does http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/stable.html section 8.4 apply > to kmod drivers as well? There is no such formal guarantee, but in my opinion, it should be the case. Do you imagine a change in kmod which could break a DPDK version?