From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:38:04 +0100
Message-ID: <2103008.ubY7H1HT7g@xps13>
References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274BEE4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <1593922.H4Bo57569h@xps13> <a4045879-5362-91e8-4e18-156938c74ea1@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Wiles,
 Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.128.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B585DE0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:38:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k90so155098493wrc.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:38:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a4045879-5362-91e8-4e18-156938c74ea1@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2017-02-13 16:46, Ferruh Yigit:
> 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.

Yes it is a problem for drivers/library interface.
It is not an ABI, which is an application/library interface.