| Message ID | 1449457307-15206-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEB5957A; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:02:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46BC9436 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:02:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2015 19:02:00 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,392,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="701502900" Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2015 19:01:59 -0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com [10.239.29.89]) by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id tB731vo4006685; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:01:57 +0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id tB731r8W015241; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:01:55 +0800 Received: (from jijiangl@localhost) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id tB731rnO015237; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:01:53 +0800 From: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:01:47 +0800 Message-Id: <1449457307-15206-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.2 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Jijiang Liu
Dec. 7, 2015, 3:01 a.m. UTC
Announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf.
Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Comments
2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu: > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI > + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned. Please, more details would be appreciated. We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice.
Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM > To: Liu, Jijiang > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct > rte_eth_conf > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu: > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > > + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 > does not contain these ABI > > + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned. > > Please, more details would be appreciated. > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice. * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'. The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned. Is it enough clear?
2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang: > Hi Thomas, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM > > To: Liu, Jijiang > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct > > rte_eth_conf > > > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu: > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > > > + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 > > does not contain these ABI > > > + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned. > > > > Please, more details would be appreciated. > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice. > > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure > (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. > and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'. > The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned. > > Is it enough clear? No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf. Ideally, an RFC patch would help.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Liu, Jijiang > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct > rte_eth_conf > > 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM > > > To: Liu, Jijiang > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct > > > rte_eth_conf > > > > > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu: > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to > > > > +support > > > > + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The > > > > +release 2.2 > > > does not contain these ABI > > > > + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is > planned. > > > > > > Please, more details would be appreciated. > > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice. > > > > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > > tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the > rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure > > (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * > tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. > > and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'. > > The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, > and no backwards compatibility is planned. > > > > Is it enough clear? > > No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the > purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf. Ok, will do. > Ideally, an RFC patch would help. I'm working on RFC patch, but it probably will miss merge timeslot of this release.
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 3:02 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf > > Announce ABI change for struct rte_eth_conf. > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> Acked-by: Andrey Chilikin <andrey.chilikin@intel.com>
2015-12-07 07:47, Liu, Jijiang: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM > > > > To: Liu, Jijiang > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for struct > > > > rte_eth_conf > > > > > > > > 2015-12-07 11:01, Jijiang Liu: > > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to > > > > > +support > > > > > + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The > > > > > +release 2.2 > > > > does not contain these ABI > > > > > + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is > > planned. > > > > > > > > Please, more details would be appreciated. > > > > We need to decide whether an ABI deprecation is the right choice. > > > > > > * ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support > > > tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling APIs, which is the > > rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure > > > (uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_q, uint16_t tx_q, rte_eth_tunnel_conf * > > tunnel_conf) API is planned to add. > > > and the 'tunnel_conf' shloud be stored in global 'rte_eth_conf'. > > > The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI change, but release 2.3 will, > > and no backwards compatibility is planned. > > > > > > Is it enough clear? > > > > No, I think we need an explanation in the commit message of what is the > > purpose of rte_eth_dev_tunnel_configure() and tunnel_conf. > Ok, will do. > > Ideally, an RFC patch would help. > I'm working on RFC patch, but it probably will miss merge timeslot of this release. A RFC patch may be incomplete. The API changes are enough.
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst index 1c7ab01..f50f0c7 100644 --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst @@ -19,3 +19,7 @@ Deprecation Notices and table action handlers will be updated: the pipeline parameter will be added, the packets mask parameter will be either removed (for input port action handler) or made input-only. + +* ABI changes are planned for struct rte_eth_conf in order to support + tunneling packet configuration in unified tunneling API. The release 2.2 does not contain these ABI + changes, but release 2.3 will, and no backwards compatibility is planned.