[PATCH v4 1/4] doc: announce new cpu flag added to rte_cpu_flag_t

[Bruce Richardson]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:52:49AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/18/2023 9:25 AM, Sivaprasad Tummala wrote:
> > A new flag RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX is added to rte_cpu_flag_t in
> > DPDK 23.07 release to support monitorx instruction on EPYC processors.
> > This results in ABI breakage for legacy apps.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala <sivaprasad.tummala at amd.com>
> > ---
> >  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > index dcc1ca1696..831713983f 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > @@ -163,3 +163,6 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >    The new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*)
> >    will gradually transition from experimental to stable status
> >    starting with DPDK 23.07 release.
> > +
> > +* eal/x86: The enum ``rte_cpu_flag_t`` will be extended with a new cpu flag
> > +  ``RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX`` to support monitorx instruction on EPYC processors.
> 
> 
> OK to add new CPU flag,
> Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
> 
> 
> But @David, @Bruce, is it OK to break ABI whenever a new CPU flag is
> added, should we hide CPU flags better?
> 
> Or other option can be drop the 'RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS' and allow
> appending new flags to the end although this may lead enum become more
> messy by time.

+1 top drop the NUMFLAGS value. We should not break ABI each time we need a
new flag.