On 06/01/2021 09:11, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 06/01/2021 10:06, David Marchand:
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:14 PM Maxime Coquelin
>> <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user_ethdev.c 
>>> b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user_ethdev.c
>>> index 1f1f63a1a5..f4775ff141 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -663,6 +663,17 @@ virtio_user_pmd_probe(struct rte_vdev_device *vdev)
>>>         char *mac_addr = NULL;
>>>         int ret = -1;
>>>
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * ToDo 1: Implement detection mechanism at vdev bus level as PCI, 
>>> but
>>> +        * it implies API breakage.
>>
>> Extending rte_vdev_driver to implement this detection would be an ABI 
>> breakage.
>> This is a driver-only API (rte_vdev_driver is only used by the vdev
>> bus and drivers afaics).
>>
>> Doing this is allowed as per my understanding of the ABI policy which
>> guarantees ABI stability for applications.
>> We do not guarantee this stability for OOT drivers.
> 
> I agree.
> As a reminder, the A in ABI stands for Application.
> 

+1, as long as the binary interface remains the same, we are good.

Reply via email to