Hi David, On 02/15/2016 11:21 AM, Hunt, David wrote: > On 15/02/2016 10:15, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> On 02/15/2016 10:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote: >>> I'm working on that at the moment with the external mempool handler >>> code. However, it crossed my mind that we have a choice to use symbol >>> versioning OR use NEXT_ABI. Would one method be preferred over the >>> other? >> >> I think symbol versioning should always be preferred when possible. >> >> In your case, as far as I remember, your are updating the rte_mempool >> structure, which is accessed by static inline functions. I don't think >> it is easily manageable with symbol versioning. Moreover, the ABI will >> already be broken by Keith's patch, so I think it's less problematic >> to have other patches breaking the ABI at the same time. > > OK, Thanks for that. I'll use NEXT_ABI in this case so. :)
Just to let you know in case you missed it: Keith's patch (v3 [1] and v4 [2]) finally does not have the NEXT_ABI ifdefs, because it was too heavy. So for your patches it will also depend on the complexity of the changes. You can have a try with NEXT_ABI and see if the code is still maintainable or not. If not, the process is to push a deprecation notice for 16.04 and the code for 16.07. Regards, Olivier [1] v3: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033004.html [2] v4: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033102.html
