From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4097404.y7j9CXhnSi@xps>
References: <20180307174422.118291-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <1672091.0Tzq5VA8o7@xps>
 <20180308153504.GA32578@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
 Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A3C5F5D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Mar 2018 17:04:17 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20180308153504.GA32578@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
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>

08/03/2018 16:35, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:17:00PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 08/03/2018 12:43, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > On 3/8/2018 8:05 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 07/03/2018 18:44, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > >> After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI
> > > >> config and process which has similar targets?
> > > > 
> > > > They are different targets.
> > > > Experimental API is always enabled but may be avoided by applications.
> > > > Next ABI can be used to break ABI without notice and disabled to keep
> > > > old ABI compatibility. It is almost never used because it is preferred
> > > > to keep ABI compatibility with rte_compat macros, or wait a deprecation
> > > > period after notice.
> > > 
> > > OK, I see.
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't we disable it by default at least? Otherwise who is not paying
> > > attention to this config option will get and ABI/API break.
> > 
> > Yes I think you are right, it can be disabled by default.
> > 
> I would agree, there seems to be overlap here, and the experimental tagging can
> cover what the NEXT_API flag is meant to do.  It can be removed I think.

It is not NEXT_API but NEXT_ABI.
Why do you think it overlaps experimental API tagging?