On 2/13/2017 4:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-02-13 16:02, Dumitrescu, Cristian: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> When a new member (function pointer) is added to struct eth_dev_ops (as the >> last member), does it need to go through ABI chance process (e.g. chance >> notice one release before)? >> >> IMO the answer is no: struct eth_dev_ops is marked as internal and its >> instances are only accessed through pointers, so the rte_eth_devices array >> should not be impacted by the ops structure expanding at its end. Unless >> there is something that I am missing? > > You are right, it is an internal struct. > So no need of a deprecation notice.
When dpdk compiled as dynamic library, application will load PMDs dynamically as plugin. Is this use case cause ABI compatibility issue? I think drivers <--> libraries interface can cause ABI breakages for dynamic library case, although not sure how common use case this is. > > We must clearly separate API and internal code in ethdev. > >> My question is in the context of this patch under review for 17.5 release: >> http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-February/057367.html. > > I did not look at it yet. Will do after the release. > >
