On 08-Apr-19 10:04 AM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
On 07/04/2019 10:48, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
04/04/2019 16:07, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 04-Apr-19 1:52 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
[SNIP]
So, if we are to cement our core API - we have to make a concrete effort
to specify what goes and what stays, if we want it to be maintainable.
The DPDK 1.0 specification, if you will :)
"DPDK 1.0 specification", that's a great project name :-)
Honestly - I would say that I am nervous of this.
The definition of a DPDK 1.0 specification as a gate to API stability,
feels like a "great plan tomorrow" instead of a "good plan" today. I
think that getting people to dedicate time to such a specification might
prove problematic and I could see this effort being very time consuming.
It might never get completed.
My preference would be to instead adopt a well-publicised community
timeline for adopting more conservative API maintenance rules.
Perhaps we could give ourselves as a community a time-limited window in
which to address concerns around the API before they become hardened -
perhaps say until DPDK 19.11 LTS, or something of the order of 6 months
to 9 months.
We then would know the timeline when niggles like exposure of internal
structures and mbuf structure needed to be sorted by and could
prioritize accordingly.
Ray K
My worry here is that some API's get more attention than others, but
requirements for freezing the API/ABI are applicable to all of them.
Everyone loves discussing specifics of mbufs and dev API's, and I have
no doubt that DPDK community can arrive at a consensus with regards to
mbuf format etc. in a timely manner, since everyone has a vested
interest in those covering their use cases. I have way less confidence
in us possibly having saner and more maintainable platform
initialization code, simply because any attempt to change those will
likely be met with "please keep all of the old stuff working", which
gets us right back to where we started.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
