08/03/2018 16:35, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:17:00PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 08/03/2018 12:43, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On 3/8/2018 8:05 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 07/03/2018 18:44, Ferruh Yigit: > > > >> After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI > > > >> config and process which has similar targets? > > > > > > > > They are different targets. > > > > Experimental API is always enabled but may be avoided by applications. > > > > Next ABI can be used to break ABI without notice and disabled to keep > > > > old ABI compatibility. It is almost never used because it is preferred > > > > to keep ABI compatibility with rte_compat macros, or wait a deprecation > > > > period after notice. > > > > > > OK, I see. > > > > > > Shouldn't we disable it by default at least? Otherwise who is not paying > > > attention to this config option will get and ABI/API break. > > > > Yes I think you are right, it can be disabled by default. > > > I would agree, there seems to be overlap here, and the experimental tagging > can > cover what the NEXT_API flag is meant to do. It can be removed I think.
It is not NEXT_API but NEXT_ABI. Why do you think it overlaps experimental API tagging?