[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split

[Slava Ovsiienko]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 14:37
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk at gmail.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>
> Cc: dpdk-dev <dev at dpdk.org>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas at monjalon.net>; Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>;
> Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>; David Marchand
> <david.marchand at redhat.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split
> 
> On 10/15/2020 12:26 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> 
> <...>
> 
> >>>>> If we see some of the features of such kind or other PMDs adopts
> >>>>> the split feature - we'll try to find the common root and consider
> >>>>> the way how
> >>> to report it.
> >>>>
> >>>> My only concern with that approach will be ABI break again if
> >>>> something needs to exposed over rte_eth_dev_info().
> >>
> >> Let's reserve the pointer to struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations in the
> >> rte_eth_dev_info to avoid ABI break?
> >
> > Works for me. If we add an additional reserved field.
> >
> > Due to RC1 time constraint, I am OK to leave it as a reserved filed
> > and fill meat when it is required if other ethdev maintainers are OK.
> > I will be required for feature complete.
> >
> 
> Sounds good to me.

OK, let's introduce the pointer in the rte_eth_dev_info and 
define struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations as experimental.
Will it be allowed to update this one later (after 20.11)? 
Is ABI break is allowed for the case?

With best regards, Slava