From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: announce ABI change of struct rte_port_source_params and rte_port_sink_params Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: <41993039.3oY5XAlVDj@xps13> References: <1463404710-25146-1-git-send-email-roy.fan.zhang@intel.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D8912647A3BBB9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <7134797.PeUvHm5xl4@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , dev@dpdk.org, Panu Matilainen , "Singh, Jasvinder" To: "Zhang, Roy Fan" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1252142 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:28:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o80so120325305wme.1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7134797.PeUvHm5xl4@xps13> 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" 2016-07-27 12:42, Thomas Monjalon: > 2016-07-27 10:08, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > As Thomas mentioned, today is probably the last day to discuss ABI changes. This one is pretty small and straightforward, any issues with it? > > > > Panu had a concern that the change from "char *" to "const char *" is too small to be regarded as ABI breakage and we should simply go ahead and do it. My conservative proposal was to put a notice anyway. > > > > Nonetheless, what I would like to get from Thomas and Panu is a path forward for this now: > > a) If we agree to consider this an ABI change, please merge the notice for 16.7; > > Panu was noticing 3 things (and I agree with them): > - it is an API change > - they can be grouped in only one list item > - it is better to wait having more changes to break an API > > About the third point, in this specific case, I think it is acceptable because: > - it should not break the ABI > - the impact of the API change is really small > - I'm not sure the packet framework should be considered as a DPDK API. > > > b) If we agree this is too small for an ABI change, please let us agree now > > to accept our quick patch for 16.11 for this change. > > For an API deprecation notice (reworded), > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon Applied, thanks