2021-10-14 17:31 (UTC+0000), Harman Kalra: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozl...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:29 AM > > To: Harman Kalra <hka...@marvell.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; > > david.march...@redhat.com; m...@ashroe.eu > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] eal/interrupts: avoid direct access to > > interrupt handle > > > > External Email > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2021-10-05 17:44 (UTC+0530), Harman Kalra: > > > Making changes to the interrupt framework to use interrupt handle APIs > > > to get/set any field. Direct access to any of the fields should be > > > avoided to avoid any ABI breakage in future. > > > > How is ABI breakage applicable to internal consumers? > > > > This protects against fields renaming for sure, but convenience is arguable. > > If EAL needs to add a EAL-private field to struct rte_intr_handle, it must > > add > > an accessor even though the field is likely OS-specific. > > It would be simpler if the definition was in some private EAL header and > > could be accessed directly by EAL code. > > Initially we thought to implement this way only i.e. defining rte_intr_handle > inside internal headers > but supporting out of tree drivers was one of the reason to go via this > get/set approach. All drivers > internal and external should follow the same way, that was the intention. > > Thanks > Harman
True for drivers, I understand this, but the question is about EAL itself. I shouldn't say "internal consumers", I only meant EAL, not inbox drivers.
