On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:22 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:52:49AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 4/18/2023 9:25 AM, Sivaprasad Tummala wrote: > > > A new flag RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX is added to rte_cpu_flag_t in > > > DPDK 23.07 release to support monitorx instruction on EPYC processors. > > > This results in ABI breakage for legacy apps. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala <sivaprasad.tumm...@amd.com> > > > --- > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > index dcc1ca1696..831713983f 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > @@ -163,3 +163,6 @@ Deprecation Notices > > > The new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*) > > > will gradually transition from experimental to stable status > > > starting with DPDK 23.07 release. > > > + > > > +* eal/x86: The enum ``rte_cpu_flag_t`` will be extended with a new cpu > > > flag > > > + ``RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX`` to support monitorx instruction on EPYC > > > processors.
There is no need for announcing an addition. The problem is moving/removing other elements of an enum. > > > > > > OK to add new CPU flag, > > Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> > > > > > > But @David, @Bruce, is it OK to break ABI whenever a new CPU flag is > > added, should we hide CPU flags better? > > > > Or other option can be drop the 'RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS' and allow > > appending new flags to the end although this may lead enum become more > > messy by time. > > +1 top drop the NUMFLAGS value. We should not break ABI each time we need a > new flag. +1. So in 23.07 we need an announce for this removal to happen in 23.11. -- David Marchand
