Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:34:14PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 08/03/2018 20:40, Neil Horman: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:04:01PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 08/03/2018 16:35, Neil Horman: > > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:17:00PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 08/03/2018 1

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Thomas Monjalon
08/03/2018 20:40, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:04:01PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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: >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:04:01PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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:

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Thomas Monjalon
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_A

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread 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 si

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Thomas Monjalon
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

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread 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 applicat

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-08 Thread Thomas Monjalon
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

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-07 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 17:44 +, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI > config and process which has similar targets? > > Are distros disable experimental APIs when delivering DPDK? And is > there > any config required to control this, as RTE

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] config: remove RTE_NEXT_ABI

2018-03-07 Thread Ferruh Yigit
After experimental API process defined do we still need RTE_NEXT_ABI config and process which has similar targets? Are distros disable experimental APIs when delivering DPDK? And is there any config required to control this, as RTE_NEXT_ABI intended to do? Cc: Neil Horman Cc: Thomas Monjalon Cc