From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:17:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1672091.0Tzq5VA8o7@xps> References: <20180307174422.118291-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <6880912.l9NoFy8GUE@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Neil Horman , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dev@dpdk.org, Luca Boccassi , Christian Ehrhardt To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8064F5F14 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:17:19 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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.