[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/7] eal: support different modules

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:29:02 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:

> 03/06/2013 18:08, Antti Kantee :
> > On 03.06.2013 10:58, Damien Millescamps wrote:
> > >> -/** Device needs igb_uio kernel module */
> > >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO 0x0001
> > >> 
> > >>   /** Device driver must be registered several times until failure */
> > >> 
> > >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0002
> > >> +#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0001
> > > 
> > > You are breaking a public API here, and I don't see any technical reason
> > > to do so. The RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO flag could be deprecated, but
> > > there is no way its value could be recycled into an already existing
> > > flag.
> > 
> > Is breaking the API a bad thing in this context?  IMHO the
> > initialization APIs need work before they're general enough and
> > perpetually supporting the current ones seems like an unnecessary
> > burden.  I'm trying to understand the general guidelines of the project.
> > 
> > (and nittily, recycling flag values is fine for static-only libs as long
> > as you remove the old macro, but of course removal is the API breakage
> > you mentioned)
> 
> Yes, DPDK is a young project but breaking API should be always justified.
> In this case it is not mandatory to change it.
> 

This is a source project, there is no fixed ABI.