From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rahul Lakkireddy Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] doc: announce ABI change for filtering support Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:21:38 +0530 Message-ID: <20151215135136.GA27814@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> References: <20151215084048.GA26906@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> <2837192.XpzTdfrod8@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Felix Marti , Nirranjan Kirubaharan , Kumar A S To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from stargate3.asicdesigners.com (stargate.chelsio.com [12.32.117.8]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3381111F5 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:51:48 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2837192.XpzTdfrod8@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Thomas, On Tuesday, December 12/15/15, 2015 at 00:55:20 -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-15 14:10, Rahul Lakkireddy: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I am preparing a v2 of this series where I will be accomodating some > > more fields to be considered for filtering. However, if the overall > > approach seems ok to everyone then, should I submit a separate patch > > for this ABI change announcement ? > > Yes, if this announce is not enough: > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=648e6b3815a35 > Apart from rte_eth_fdir_flow ABI change mentioned in above link, new fields will be added to rte_eth_ipv4_flow and rte_eth_ipv6_flow, which break their ABI. Also, 4 new flow types will be added, which increases RTE_ETH_FLOW_MAX from 18 to 22 and breaks the ABI. Should I send a separate ABI change announce patch for each of them? Thanks, Rahul