From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Subject: Re: doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:36:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <894e4d0b-9541-c374-eabb-a1e0320e7347@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274C023@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 2/13/2017 5:21 PM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:46 PM
>> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian
>> <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Wiles,
>> Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops?
>>
>> On 2/13/2017 4:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2017-02-13 16:02, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> When a new member (function pointer) is added to struct eth_dev_ops
>> (as the last member), does it need to go through ABI chance process (e.g.
>> chance notice one release before)?
>>>>
>>>> IMO the answer is no: struct eth_dev_ops is marked as internal and its
>> instances are only accessed through pointers, so the rte_eth_devices array
>> should not be impacted by the ops structure expanding at its end. Unless
>> there is something that I am missing?
>>>
>>> You are right, it is an internal struct.
>>> So no need of a deprecation notice.
>>
>> When dpdk compiled as dynamic library, application will load PMDs
>> dynamically as plugin.
>> Is this use case cause ABI compatibility issue?
>>
>> I think drivers <--> libraries interface can cause ABI breakages for
>> dynamic library case, although not sure how common use case this is.
>>
>
> Do you have a specific example that might cause an issue when adding a new function at the end of the ethdev ops structure? I cannot think of any, given that the ops structure is marked as internal and it is only accessed through pointers.
Adding at the end of the struct is probably safe.
>
>>
>>>
>>> We must clearly separate API and internal code in ethdev.
>>>
>>>> My question is in the context of this patch under review for 17.5 release:
>> http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-February/057367.html.
>>>
>>> I did not look at it yet. Will do after the release.
>>>
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-13 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-13 16:02 doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-02-13 16:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-13 16:46 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-13 17:21 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-02-13 17:36 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2017-02-13 17:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-13 17:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=894e4d0b-9541-c374-eabb-a1e0320e7347@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.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.