From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops? Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265274BEE4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1593922.H4Bo57569h@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" , "Wiles, Keith" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C762C4B for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:46:11 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1593922.H4Bo57569h@xps13> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 2/13/2017 4:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-02-13 16:02, Dumitrescu, Cristian: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> When a new member (function pointer) is added to struct eth_dev_ops (as the last member), does it need to go through ABI chance process (e.g. chance notice one release before)? >> >> IMO the answer is no: struct eth_dev_ops is marked as internal and its instances are only accessed through pointers, so the rte_eth_devices array should not be impacted by the ops structure expanding at its end. Unless there is something that I am missing? > > You are right, it is an internal struct. > So no need of a deprecation notice. When dpdk compiled as dynamic library, application will load PMDs dynamically as plugin. Is this use case cause ABI compatibility issue? I think drivers <--> libraries interface can cause ABI breakages for dynamic library case, although not sure how common use case this is. > > We must clearly separate API and internal code in ethdev. > >> My question is in the context of this patch under review for 17.5 release: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-February/057367.html. > > I did not look at it yet. Will do after the release. > >