Hi Eric,
<snip>
> > @@ -157,6 +159,7 @@ struct rte_eth_bond_8023ad_conf {
> > uint32_t tx_period_ms;
> > uint32_t rx_marker_period_ms;
> > uint32_t update_timeout_ms;
> > + rte_eth_bond_8023ad_ext_slowrx_fn slowrx_cb;
> > };
>
> This still is a likely an ABI break, previously discussed around here:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027321.html
>
> It might not be embedded anywhere in DPDK codebase, but there's no
> telling what others might have done with it (have an array of them, embed in
> other structs etc).
>
> Also ultimately ABI compatibility goes both ways: when the library soname
> does not change then an application is free to assume both downgrading and
> upgrading are safe. In this case, upgrading *might* be okay, downgrading
> certainly is not. So by that measure it definitely is an ABI break.
>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_version.map
> > b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_version.map
> > index 22bd920..33d73ff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_version.map
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_version.map
> > @@ -27,3 +27,9 @@ DPDK_2.1 {
> > rte_eth_bond_free;
> >
> > } DPDK_2.0;
> > +
> > +DPDK_2.2 {
> > + rte_eth_bond_8023ad_ext_collect;
> > + rte_eth_bond_8023ad_ext_distrib;
> > + rte_eth_bond_8023ad_ext_slowtx;
> > +} DPDK_2.1;
> >
>
> These symbols are not part of DPDK 2.2, the version here is wrong.
> Technically it would not actually matter much but better not to confuse
> things unnecessarily.
>
> - Panu -
It looks like Panu's points are valid, a V3 of this patch set which takes care
of these issues will be needed.
Patches 1/6, 5/6 and 6/6 of the patch set are bug fixes, so each patch should
contain a fixes line.
Patches 2/6, 3/6 and 4/6 are a new feature, the release notes should be updated
for this feature.
Could I suggest splitting the patch set into two patch sets, a bug fix patch
set and a new feature patch set.
Regards,
Bernard.
