RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/ice: do not include private headers in testpmd

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Given where we are, this is probably a reasonable solution.
> However, I'm
> > > also thinking that maybe we should have a discussion as to whether
> testpmd
> > > - which is, after all, for testing PMDs - should be limited to the
> public
> > > APIs. Is there not a case to be made for allowing the per-driver
> testpmd
> > > files to access the internals of the driver for testing purposes?
> > >
> > +techboard and others for more input and thoughts for the future.
> 
> Accessing some symbols from the internal ABI is probably ok but it is
> a slippery topic.
> Like the ethdev ops changes between 25.11/26.07 that triggered crashes
> in app/test.

I tend to agree with Bruce's statement about the purpose of testpmd:
The purpose of testpmd is testing PMDs.

When used for PMD development purposes, this means:
1. Testpmd should be allowed to go deep inside PMDs.
2. Testpmd should not be limited by ABI/API stability.

This also means that the testpmd released with DPDK 27.03 is not expected to be compatible with the DPDK 26.11 LTS runtime.
If a new release of testpmd offers new features, they will not be available until you upgrade your DPDK runtime.

"Nice to have":
When used for non-PMD development purposes,
perhaps testpmd could emit a warning if not running on the same build as the DPDK runtime.

-Morten