On 07/19/2016 05:07 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:04 PM >> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com; >> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for mbuf >> structure >> >> Hi Bruce, >> >> On 07/19/2016 04:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: >>>> For 16.11, the mbuf structure will be modified implying ABI breakage. >>>> Some discussions already took place here: >>>> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> >>>> --- >>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> index f502f86..2245bc2 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>> @@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Deprecation Notices >>>> * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are >> deprecated and >>>> will be removed in 16.11. >>>> It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions. >>>> + >>>> +* ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: >>>> +some >>>> + fields will be reordered to facilitate the writing of >>>> +``data_off``, >>>> + ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some >>>> +platforms >>>> + have an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. >>>> +The >>>> + useless ``port`` field will also be removed at the same occasion. >>>> -- >>> >>> Have we fully bottomed out on the mbuf changes. I'm not sure that once >>> patches start getting considered for merge, new opinions may come >>> forward. For instance, is the "port" field really "useless"? >>> >>> Would it not be better to put in a less specific deprecation notice? >>> What happens if this notice goes in and the final changes are >>> different from those called out here? >> >> Yes, you are right. What about the following text? >> >> ABI changes are planned for 16.11 in the ``rte_mbuf`` structure: some >> fields may be reordered to facilitate the writing of ``data_off``, >> ``refcnt``, and ``nb_segs`` in one operation. Indeed, some platforms have >> an overhead if the store address is not naturally aligned. The ``port`` >> field may also be removed at the same occasion. >> > Better. Two suggestions: > 1. change "Indeed" to "because" and join the sentences. > 2. change the last sentence to be even more general: "Other mbuf fields, such > as the port field, may be moved or removed as part of this mbuf work".
It's much better indeed ;) Thanks Bruce, I'll submit a v2.
