30/01/2020 17:15, Eelco Chaudron: > On 30 Jan 2020, at 17:04, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 16:55 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 30/01/2020 15:21, Luca Boccassi: > >>> On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 15:17 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> 30/01/2020 13:57, Luca Boccassi: > >>>>> On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 13:33 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I disagree with the need of this patch. > >>>>>> The symbol was experimental, meaning we can change it. > >>>>>> Removing experimental tag is not an ABI break. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> This symbol change was requested for backport in 19.11.x, and > >>>>> experimental or not I'm not too keen on backward incompatible > >>>>> changes > >>>>> to the public interface in an _LTS point release_. The > >>>>> compromise > >>>>> was > >>>>> to see if we could support both symbols version, which makes > >>>>> the > >>>>> change > >>>>> backward compatible. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you prefer not to have this patch in mainline I'm also fine > >>>>> in > >>>>> taking it just for the LTS. I agree with you that it is not > >>>>> required > >>>>> for mainline releases (although nicer for me if it's a backport > >>>>> rather > >>>>> than a new change). > >>>> > >>>> I would like to avoid opening the door for maintaining the > >>>> experimental ABI > >>>> in the mainline. Please take it directly in the LTS. > >>>> > >>>> The next question is to know whether we really want to have such > >>>> patch in LTS. > >>>> Anyway, 19.11.0 has this symbol as experimental. > >>>> How adding a non-experimental version of the function in 19.11.1 > >>>> will > >>>> change > >>>> the ABI status of the whole 19.11 branch? > >>> > >>> The problem is not adding the new symbol, but removing the > >>> experimental > >>> one. Changing the version of the symbol was requested by OVS for > >>> inclusion in 19.11. > >> > >> Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. > >> Given 19.11.0 already has the symbol as experimental, > >> and that applications like OVS had to accept it as experimental, > >> why removing experimental tag in 19.11.1? > > > > I think it was mentioned that it was preferred not to suppress the > > compiler warning to avoid any accidental use in the future, but the > > OVS > > maintainer(s) should answer as I might remember wrongly. > > Yes this is the reason, OVS compiles with -Werror so we would like to > avoid the warnings. You can not disable them per include, it’s global > for all of DPDK.
Yes but anyway OVS must accept the experimental function as the next release will use it with DPDK 19.11.0.