From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:43:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20180307174422.118291-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <6880912.l9NoFy8GUE@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Neil Horman , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dev@dpdk.org, Luca Boccassi , Christian Ehrhardt To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01704CC0 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:44:02 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <6880912.l9NoFy8GUE@xps> Content-Language: en-US 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 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.