> -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 14:37 > To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Slava Ovsiienko > <viachesl...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; > Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <arybche...@solarflare.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split > > On 10/15/2020 12:26 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > <...> > > >>>>> If we see some of the features of such kind or other PMDs adopts > >>>>> the split feature - we'll try to find the common root and consider > >>>>> the way how > >>> to report it. > >>>> > >>>> My only concern with that approach will be ABI break again if > >>>> something needs to exposed over rte_eth_dev_info(). > >> > >> Let's reserve the pointer to struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations in the > >> rte_eth_dev_info to avoid ABI break? > > > > Works for me. If we add an additional reserved field. > > > > Due to RC1 time constraint, I am OK to leave it as a reserved filed > > and fill meat when it is required if other ethdev maintainers are OK. > > I will be required for feature complete. > > > > Sounds good to me.
OK, let's introduce the pointer in the rte_eth_dev_info and define struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations as experimental. Will it be allowed to update this one later (after 20.11)? Is ABI break is allowed for the case? With best regards, Slava
