From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4097404.y7j9CXhnSi@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180308153504.GA32578@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
08/03/2018 16:35, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:17:00PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 08/03/2018 12:43, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > On 3/8/2018 8:05 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 07/03/2018 18:44, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > >> After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI
> > > >> config and process which has similar targets?
> > > >
> > > > They are different targets.
> > > > Experimental API is always enabled but may be avoided by applications.
> > > > Next ABI can be used to break ABI without notice and disabled to keep
> > > > old ABI compatibility. It is almost never used because it is preferred
> > > > to keep ABI compatibility with rte_compat macros, or wait a deprecation
> > > > period after notice.
> > >
> > > OK, I see.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we disable it by default at least? Otherwise who is not paying
> > > attention to this config option will get and ABI/API break.
> >
> > Yes I think you are right, it can be disabled by default.
> >
> I would agree, there seems to be overlap here, and the experimental tagging can
> cover what the NEXT_API flag is meant to do. It can be removed I think.
It is not NEXT_API but NEXT_ABI.
Why do you think it overlaps experimental API tagging?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-08 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 17:44 [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-07 18:06 ` Luca Boccassi
2018-03-08 8:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-08 11:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-08 15:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-08 15:35 ` Neil Horman
2018-03-08 16:04 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2018-03-08 19:40 ` Neil Horman
2018-03-08 21:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-09 0:18 ` Neil Horman
2018-10-04 15:43 ` [PATCH] config: disable RTE_NEXT_ABI by default Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-04 14:49 ` Luca Boccassi
2018-10-04 15:48 ` [PATCH v2] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-04 15:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-04 15:28 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-04 15:55 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-05 9:13 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-10-05 10:17 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 11:30 ` Neil Horman
2018-10-05 12:35 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=4097404.y7j9CXhnSi@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=bluca@debian.org \
--cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.