From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/16] ethdev: update ABI for flow API
	functions
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:36:30 +0200
Message-ID: <21769249.YhaxFZ1arZ@xps>
References: <20180404150312.12304-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <2170144.NMypU1fd1R@xps> <20180405124450.GL4957@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE41B1CACD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2018 15:36:32 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20180405124450.GL4957@6wind.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

05/04/2018 14:44, Adrien Mazarguil:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:06:10PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 04/04/2018 17:56, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > Subsequent patches will modify existing types and slightly alter the
> > > behavior of the flow API. This warrants a major ABI breakage.
> > > 
> > > While it is already taken care of for 18.05 (LIBABIVER was updated to
> > > version 9 by a prior commit), this patch explicitly adds the affected flow
> > > API functions as a safety measure.
> > 
> > I don't understand this patch.
> > 
> > If the API is broken, you must move the function from old block to
> > the new one.
> 
> Missed that part, I'll update it.
> 
> > And it must be done in the patch modifying the function.
> 
> About that, almost each patch in this series breaks the ABI in its own
> way. This left me with two options: either updating these functions once and
> for all and explaining why in a dedicated patch, or updating them in the
> first patch with an ABI impact, with subsequent patches piggybacking on that
> change.
> 
> Unless there's a way to update the map file for each patch that breaks ABI,
> I think the former is more consistent, but I don't mind if you prefer the
> latter. What do you suggest?

The ABI information must be updated when breaking (2nd solution).