[dpdk-dev] doc: deprecation notice for ethdev ops?

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Mon Feb 13 17:46:06 CET 2017


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.
> 
> 



More information about the dev mailing list