On 21/04/2020 10:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 21/04/2020 08:01, Ray Kinsella:
>>
>> On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
That said, once an ABI migrates from
21/04/2020 08:01, Ray Kinsella:
>
> On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
> >>
> >> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
> >>
> >> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_
> >> be chang
On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
>>
>> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
>>
>> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_ be
>> changing.
>> We don't have a strict commitment to t
20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
>
> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
>
> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_ be
> changing.
> We don't have a strict commitment to the v21 ABI until v20.11.
>
> However if v21 is chang
: Thomas Monjalon ; Richardson, Bruce
>>>
>>> Cc: Trahe, Fiona ; dev@dpdk.org; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
>>> ; Neil Horman ; Luca
>>> Boccassi
>>> ; Kevin Traynor ; Yigit, Ferruh
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version
t; Richardson, Bruce
>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX ; Neil
> Horman
> ; Luca Boccassi ; Kevin Traynor
> ; Yigit, Ferruh ; Trahe, Fiona
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
> Hi all,
>
> >
iuszX
>> ; Neil Horman ; Luca
>> Boccassi
>> ; Kevin Traynor ; Yigit, Ferruh
>>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
>> function
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 17/
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
>
>
> On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
> >> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 1
On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
>> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed
17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> >> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona w
On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> 5a. If in 20.05 we ad
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>
>
> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> >>> 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what
>
On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
>>> 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what should
>>> the name of the original function be? fn_v20, or fn_v20.0
>>
>>
16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> > 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what should
> > the name of the original function be? fn_v20, or fn_v20.0
>
> In technical terms it really doesn't matter, it's j
uot;sticks" and belongs to the
> new ABI which then must remain stable til 21.11
For functions that are part of the stable ABI, each change requires a new
version, since there is an expectation that 20.05 builds will also work
with 20.08.
Regards,
/Bruce
>
>
> > -Or
Trahe, Fiona
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 7:27 PM
> To: Ray Kinsella ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona ; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> We're going to n
e-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Ray Kinsella
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:54 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
>
>
> On 18/03/2020 20:41, Arek Kusztal wrote:
> > This patch adds
On 18/03/2020 20:41, Arek Kusztal wrote:
> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> Node 20.0 function strips capability added in 20.05 release
> to prevent some issues with ABI policy. To do that new capability
Hi Akhil, Thomas,
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:04 PM
> To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> Cc: Ray Kinsella ; Richardson, Bruce
> ; dev@dpdk.org;
> Trahe, Fiona ; dev@dpdk.org; Akhil Goyal
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev]
14/04/2020 14:13, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Ray/Thomas/Bruce,
>
> Could you please help review this patch wrt ABI policy?
> >
> > This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> > Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> > Node 20.0 function strips capability added in
Hi Ray/Thomas/Bruce,
Could you please help review this patch wrt ABI policy?
>
> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> Node 20.0 function strips capability added in 20.05 release
> to prevent some issues with A
21 matches
Mail list logo
