On 6/14/2021 5:36 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 6/10/21 12:22 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: >> Hi Gregory, >> >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 04:10:25AM +0000, Gregory Etelson wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> There was no activity that patch for a long time. >>> The patch is marked as failed, but we verified failed tests and concluded >>> that the failures can be ignored. >>> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210527152858.13312-1-getel...@nvidia.com/ >>> >>> How should I proceed with this case ? >>> Please advise. >>> >> >> I like the idea of this patch: to me it is more convenient to access to >> these fields with a bitfield. I don't see a problem about using >> bitfields here, glibc or FreeBSD netinet/ip.h are doing the same. >> >> However, as stated previously, this patch breaks the initialization API. > > Very good point. I guess we overlooked it in a number of patches > with fix RTE flow API items to start from corresponding network > headers. We used unions there to avoid ABI breakage, but it looks > like we have broken initialization API anyway. >
Hi Andrew, What is broken with the flow API item updates, can you please give a sample? > We should decide if initialization ABI breakage is a show-stopper > for RTE flow API items switching to use network protocol headers. > >> The DPDK ABI/API policy is described here: >> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#the-dpdk-abi-policy >> >>> From this document: >> >> The API should only be changed for significant reasons, such as >> performance enhancements. API breakages due to changes such as >> reorganizing public structure fields for aesthetic or readability >> purposes should be avoided. >> >> So to follow the project policy, I think we should reject this path. >> >> Regards, >> Olivier >> >
