23/06/2021 16:52, Xueming(Steven) Li: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 23/06/2021 01:50, Xueming(Steven) Li: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > 13/06/2021 14:58, Xueming Li: > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > > > > > +EXPERIMENTAL { > > > > > + global: > > > > > + > > > > > + # added in 21.08 > > > > > + rte_auxiliary_register; > > > > > + rte_auxiliary_unregister; > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > After more thoughts, shouldn't it be an internal symbol? > > > > It is used only by DPDK drivers. > > > > > > So users will not be able to compose their own driver and register > > > with auxiliary bus?z > > > > Yes, that's an interesting question actually. > > We can continue with experimental/stable status of driver ABI, but we > > should invent a new ABI flag like DRIVER, so there is no stability > > policy on such symbol. > > Not quite understand here, why we want to export the function but no ABI > guarantee? the api shouldn't change frequently IMHO.
Sorry my message was not clear. I am OK to keep "EXPERIMENTAL" in this patch. But in future, we don't want to make driver interface as part of the stable ABI because it makes evolution harder for no good reason: nobody is asking for a stable interface with drivers.