14/10/2021 10:07, Xia, Chenbo: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 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. > > Sorry for not understanding your point quickly, but what's the difference of > 'general compatibility' and 'basic compatibility'? Because in my mind, one > struct or function should either be ABI-compatible or not. Could you help > explain > it a bit?
I wonder whether we could have a guarantee for a subset of structs and functions. Anyway, this is just opening the discussion to collect some inputs first. Then we'll have to check what is possible and get a techboard approval.
