On 04-Apr-19 4:51 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:47 +0100
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
My thoughts on the matter are:
1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data
structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should reduce
the scope for ABI breaks.
2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in the
rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I want us
to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up by all
linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible.
I would also like to propose "you get one ABI break" which means each
API/ABI change must hide more infrastructure than the last. This is
the "fool me once, ..." saying in API's.
For example,
the memory rework it would have been good if the structure of mempools etc
were hidden inside EAL and not exposed. but as usual hindsight is 20/20
Mempools is not part of "memory rework" - it's a separate library built
on top of EAL's memory subsystem :) When i talk about "memory API's", i
mean memzone/malloc and friends, not mempool.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
