[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: add deprecation notice on timer lib cleanup

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:08:30 +0100
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote:

> >>> If the community agrees that primary/secondary processes should always
> >>> use the same DPDK version (regardless of static/dynamic builds etc.),
> >>> then this problem would probably be solved.  
> >>
> >> +1 to document that primary/secondary with different DPDK versions
> >> is not supported.
> >>  
> > 
> > +1,
> > 
> > but I think we need to go farther - we need a secondary process to check
> > with the primary process.
> > We can't assume everyone will read the documentation.
> >   
> 
> That easily can be done, yes.

Agree with the consensus that primary/secondary must be on the same version.
Think even driver internal data structures have to be compatiable.