From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] abi: announce mbuf addition for
	ieee1588 in DPDK 2.2
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:51:16 +0200
Message-ID: <2534416.XSNtN7mPxB@xps13>
References: <1435585344-26652-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com>
 <1597388.Dhvyq33s8s@xps13> <20150708131034.GA5708@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F3B569A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Jul 2015 17:52:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so227124299wgj.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150708131034.GA5708@bricha3-MOBL3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

2015-07-08 14:10, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:16:01PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-07-02 16:16, John McNamara:
> > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/abi.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/abi.rst
> > >  Deprecation Notices
> > >  -------------------
> > > +
> > > +* In DPDK 2.1 the IEEE1588/802.1AS support in the i40e driver makes use of the
> > > +  ``udata64`` field in the mbuf to pass the timesync register index to the
> > > +  user. In DPDK 2.2 this will be moved to a new field in the mbuf.
> > 
> > We need more acknowledgements for this decision, as stated here:
> > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/doc/guides/guidelines/versioning.rst#n51
> 
> Why can't this new field just be added at the end of cache line 1 (the second
> cache line) of the mbuf? That would avoid any ABI breakage and would mean we
> can just put the change in in this release, instead of waiting.

Are you sure that (because of __rte_cache_aligned) the size of the structure
is never increased with this new field?
Please confirm your opinion.

A comment to explain ABI compatibility in the commit message of the v4 is
also welcome.