[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] docs: Add ABI documentation

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-01-16 10:33, Neil Horman:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/abi.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +ABI policy:
> +	ABI versions are set at the time of major release labeling, and ABI may
> +change multiple times between the last labeling and the HEAD label of the git
> +tree without warning
> +
> +	ABI versions, once released are available until such time as their
> +deprecation has been noted here for at least one major release cycle, after it
> +has been tagged.  E.g. the ABI for DPDK 1.8 is shipped, and then the decision to
> +remove it is made during the development of DPDK 1.9.  The decision will be
> +recorded here, shipped with the DPDK 1.9 release, and actually removed when DPDK
> +1.10 ships.
> +
> +	ABI versions may be deprecated in whole, or in part as needed by a given
> +update.
> +
> +	Some ABI changes may be too significant to reasonably maintain multiple
> +versions of.  In those events ABI's may be updated without backward
> +compatibility provided.  The requirements for doing so are:
> +	1) At least 3 acknoweldgements of the need on the dpdk.org
> +	2) A full deprecation cycle must be made to offer downstream consumers
> +sufficient warning of the change.  E.g. if dpdk 2.0 is under development when
> +the change is proposed, a deprecation notice must be added to this file, and
> +released with dpdk 2.0.  Then the change may be incorporated for dpdk 2.1
> +	3) The LIBABIVER variable in the makefilei(s) where the ABI changes are
> +incorporated must be incremented in parallel with the ABI changes themselves
> +
> +	Note that the above process for ABI deprecation should not be undertaken
> +lightly.  ABI stability is extreemely important for downstream consumers of the
> +DPDK, especially when distributed in shared object form.  Every effort should be
> +made to preserve ABI whenever possible.  For instance, reorganizing public
> +structure field for astetic or readability purposes should be avoided as it will

astetic? typo?

> +cause ABI breakage.  Only significant (e.g. performance) reasons should be seen
> +as cause to alter ABI.
> +  
> +Deprecation Notices:

Neil, are you sure it's a good idea to put deprecations notices here instead
of release notes?

I'm also thinking that we need to add more things in this doc:
	- case of macros/constant deprecation (API only)
	- case of structure update: must be renamed to provide ABI compatibility?

Do you think we can have a tool to test the ABI compatibility by building
examples/apps of previous version and checking them with built DSO of
current version?

Thanks
-- 
Thomas