From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:09:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1593922.H4Bo57569h@xps13> References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274BEE4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Wiles, Keith" To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8494DDE0 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:09:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id r141so97870766wmg.1 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:09:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274BEE4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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. 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.