> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 3:08 PM > To: Harris, James R <james.r.har...@intel.com>; Walker, Benjamin > <benjamin.wal...@intel.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com> > Cc: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>; David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>; > Zawadzki, Tomasz <tomasz.zawad...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] Removal of PCI bus ABIs > > 14/10/2021 09:00, Xia, Chenbo: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > 14/10/2021 04:21, Xia, Chenbo: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > Yes I think we need to agree on functions to keep as-is for > compatibility. > > > > > Waiting for your input please. > > > > > > > > So, do you mean currently DPDK doesn't guarantee ABI for drivers > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > but could have driver ABI in the future? > > > > > > I don't think so, not general compatibility, > > > but we can think about a way to avoid breaking SPDK specifically, > > > which has less requirements. > > > > So the problem here is exposing some APIs to SPDK directly? Without the > 'enable_driver_sdk' > > option, I don't see a solution of both exposed and not-ABI. Any idea in your > mind? > > No the idea is to keep using enable_driver_sdk. > But so far, there is no compatibility guarantee for driver SDK. > The discussion is about which basic compatibility requirement is needed for > SPDK.
Sorry for not understanding your point quickly, but what's the difference of 'general compatibility' and 'basic compatibility'? Because in my mind, one struct or function should either be ABI-compatible or not. Could you help explain it a bit? Thanks, Chenbo > >
