2015-12-07 07:47, Liu, Jijiang: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > 2015-12-07 03:30, Liu, Jijiang: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:17 AM > > > > To: Liu, Jijiang > > > > Cc: dev at 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.
