Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce removal of ABIs in PCI bus driver

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

27/07/2021 10:44, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 05:56:17AM +0000, Xia, Chenbo wrote:
> > From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > > On 7/23/2021 8:39 AM, Xia, Chenbo wrote:
> > > > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Chenbo Xia
> > > >> +* pci: To reduce unnecessary ABIs exposed by DPDK bus driver,
> > > "rte_bus_pci.h"
> > > >> +  will be made internal in 21.11 and macros/data structures/functions
> > > defined
> > > >> +  in the header will not be considered as ABI anymore. This change is
> > > >> inspired
> > > >> +  by the RFC
> > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=17176.
> > > >
> > > > I see there's some ABI improvement work on-going and I think it could be
> > > part of
> > > > the work. If it makes sense to you, I'd like some ACKs.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > I am for reducing the public ABI as much as possible. How big will the
> > > change
> > > be? Is the 'rte_bus_pci.h' used other than './drivers/bus/pci/'?
> > 
> > I don't see big change here. And I am not sure if I understand your second
> > question. The rte_bus_pci.h will still be used by drivers (maybe remove the
> > rte prefix and change the file name).
> > 
> The file itself will still be exported in some cases, where the end-user
> has their own drivers which need to be compiled, so I'd recommend keeping
> the rte_ prefix. However, I think making all bus APIs internal-only to DPDK
> is a good idea.

I don't understand how it can exported _and_ internal.
And about the rte_ prefix, it should be kept even if it used only
in internal drivers because it prevent from namespace clash with other
libraries included by the drivers.
As a rule we should always have rte_ prefix for each symbol used outside
of its own library.

That said I am OK with the direction of hiding PCI bus API.

Applied, thanks.