On 04/08/2021 14:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for clarifying Thomas ... you are correct.
>
> Cc techbo...@dpdk.org
>
