14/10/2021 09:00, Xia, Chenbo: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 14/10/2021 04:21, Xia, Chenbo: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > Yes I think we need to agree on functions to keep as-is for > > > > compatibility. > > > > Waiting for your input please. > > > > > > So, do you mean currently DPDK doesn't guarantee ABI for drivers > > > > Yes > > > > > but could have driver ABI in the future? > > > > I don't think so, not general compatibility, > > but we can think about a way to avoid breaking SPDK specifically, > > which has less requirements. > > So the problem here is exposing some APIs to SPDK directly? Without the > 'enable_driver_sdk' > option, I don't see a solution of both exposed and not-ABI. Any idea in your > mind?
No the idea is to keep using enable_driver_sdk. But so far, there is no compatibility guarantee for driver SDK. The discussion is about which basic compatibility requirement is needed for SPDK.
