From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vhost: handle VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE
	request
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:55:56 +0100
Message-ID: <32221385.fypBVK5OXa@xps13>
References: <1449027793-30975-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <8246076.3G1fmNTuPH@xps13> <56657074.7000206@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky <vkaplans@redhat.com>,
 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1F795CD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  7 Dec 2015 14:57:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so141454736wmu.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 05:57:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56657074.7000206@redhat.com>
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>

2015-12-07 13:41, Panu Matilainen:
> On 12/07/2015 01:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-12-07 08:29, Panu Matilainen:
> >> On 12/07/2015 01:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 2015-12-02 15:53, Panu Matilainen:
> >> The vhost ABI break was announced for DPDK 2.2 in commit
> >> 3c848bd7b1c6f4f681b833322a748fdefbb5fb2d:
> > [...]
> >> So the ABI process was properly followed, except for actually bumping
> >> LIBABIVER. Bumping LIBABIVER is mentioned in
> >> doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst but it doesn't specify *when*
> >> this should be done, eg should the first patch breaking the ABI bump it
> >> or should it done be shortly before the next stable release, or
> >> something else. As it is, it seems a bit too easy to simply forget.
> >
> > I thought it was not needed to explicitly say that commits must be atomic
> > and we do not have to wait to do the required changes.
> 
> The "problem" is that during a development cycle, an ABI could be broken 
> several times but LIBABIVER should only be bumped once. So ABI breaking 
> commits will often not be atomic wrt LIBABIVER, no matter which way its 
> done.

If the ABI version has already been changed, there should be a merge conflict.
I think it's better to manage a conflict than forget to update the version.

> For example libtool recommendation is that library versions are updated 
> only just before public releases:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html#Updating-version-info

Interesting link. It makes me think that we do not manage ABI break when
downgrading the library (case of only new API keeping the ABI number).

> > In this case, I've missed it when reviewing the vhost patches breaking the
> > ABI.