04/08/2021 15:00, Xueming(Steven) Li: > From: Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> > > On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > From: Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> > > >> Its not strictly a depreciation notice though, you are not breaking > > >> anything right. > > >> Since you are not breaking anything, don't think the notice is required > > >> in the 21.11 timeframe. > > >> > > >> Now if you where doing it in 21.08, it would be an ABI change and that > > >> would be a different story. > > > > > > Thanks for looking at this! > > > Yes, it targets to 21.11. The offloading flag is fine, but the > > > shared_group does break ABI, detail: > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/215575.html > > > > Right ... its a new field, not a depreciation as such. > > What I mean by this is that no existing code is broken. > > > > 21.11 is a new ABI in any case and you are not depreciating anything, so no > > notice is required. > > Maybe it a new process, confirmed with Thomas, it's expected: > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-changes
I think what Ray means is that it breaks ABI but not API, so he doesn't consider a notice is required. My understanding of the policy is that *any* ABI change requires a notice. But if you want to make it lighter and allow any non-announced ABI change in an ABI-breaking release, I think I would vote for. Cc techbo...@dpdk.org
