From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] doc: announce ABI change for filtering support Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:57:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3617783.WkPLRCpdri@xps13> References: <2837192.XpzTdfrod8@xps13> <20151215135136.GA27814@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Felix Marti , Nirranjan Kirubaharan , Kumar A S To: Rahul Lakkireddy Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFBE11A2 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:58:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n186so95871275wmn.0 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:58:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151215135136.GA27814@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> 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" 2015-12-15 19:21, Rahul Lakkireddy: > 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? Yes please send a patch (1 is enough). You have less than 30 minutes :)