> From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 1:19 AM Harris, James R <james.r.har...@intel.com> > wrote: > > Can we keep rte_pci_register(), or a new variation of it that keeps > > the rte_pci_driver structure hidden? Hiding rte_pci_register() would > > mean SPDK can no longer work with a packaged DPDK. Or the DPDK > > packages would need to set enable_driver_sdk which I suspect is not the > intent. > > What do you think if SPDK maintains a copy of the internal headers? > > The internal API are not supposed to change that often, but we (DPDK) won't > guarantee it. > This would still put some maintenance burden on SPDK but I think it is a good > compromise. >
Would these internal symbols be considered part of the public/official ABI? When SPDK goes to dynamically load a shared DPDK library, how can we detect whether it's a version that we support linking against? > I did a PoC this morning and put patches in my forked repo: > https://github.com/david-marchand/spdk/commits/master > > > -- > David Marchand
