On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:17:30AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 10/5/2018 10:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:55:34PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 04/10/2018 17:28, Ferruh Yigit: > >>> On 10/4/2018 4:10 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> 04/10/2018 17:48, Ferruh Yigit: > >>>>> Enabling RTE_NEXT_ABI means to enable APIs that break the ABI for > >>>>> the current release and these APIs are targeted for further release. > >>>> > >>>> It seems nobody is using it in last releases. > >>>> > >>>>> RTE_NEXT_ABI shouldn't be enabled by default. > >>>> > >>>> The reason for having it enabled by default is that when you build DPDK > >>>> yourself, you probably want the latest features. > >>>> If packaged properly for stability, it is easy to disable it in > >>>> the package recipe. > >>> > >>> My concern was (if this has been used), user may get unstable APIs and > >>> without > >>> explicitly being aware of it. > >> > >> I am OK with both defaults (enabled or disabled). > >> > > I'd keep it as is. As said, I'm not sure it's being used right now anyway. > > No, not used right now. > But I think we can use it, did you able to find chance to check: > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-October/114372.html > > Option D. >
Just to propose something else, We also have the ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API flag that we IIRC default to on. Would it be worth consolidating these two mechanisms into one? Currently ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API lets us flag symbols that are not yet stable, and it seems to work well. It does not however let us simply define out structures/variables that might adversely affect the ABI. Would it be worth considering adding a macro (something like __rte_experimental_symbol()), that allows a variable/struct to be defined if ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API is set, and squashed otherwise? Neil
