Re: [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-12-07 07:47, Liu, Jijiang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM
> > > > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct
> > > > rte_eth_conf
> > > >
> > > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu:
> > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to
> > > > > +support
> > > > > +  tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The
> > > > > +release 2.2
> > > > does not contain these ABI
> > > > > +  changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is
> > planned.
> > > >
> > > > Please, more details would be appreciated.
> > > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.
> > >
> > > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support
> > >   tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the
> > rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure
> > >   (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf *
> > tunnel_conf) API is planned to add.
> > >   and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'.
> > >   The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will,
> > and no backwards compatibility is planned.
> > >
> > > Is it enough clear?
> > 
> > No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the
> > purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf.
> Ok, will do.
> > Ideally, an RFC patch would help.
> I'm working  on RFC patch, but it probably will miss merge timeslot of this release.

A RFC patch may be incomplete. The API changes are enough.