From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C06C10F13 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AEF208E3 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:16:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D7AEF208E3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DDF2C24; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 12:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B582BD8; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 12:16:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2019 03:16:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,325,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="289675033" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.26.147]) ([10.252.26.147]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2019 03:15:59 -0700 To: Ray Kinsella , Thomas Monjalon Cc: techboard@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org, Kevin Traynor References: <455a61b4-891d-eaaf-d784-2be884bcacbd@intel.com> <7166381.CkH77a7QuE@xps> <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:15:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 08-Apr-19 10:04 AM, Ray Kinsella wrote: > On 07/04/2019 10:48, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 04/04/2019 16:07, Burakov, Anatoly: >>> On 04-Apr-19 1:52 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: >>>> On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>>>> On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: > [SNIP] >>> So, if we are to cement our core API - we have to make a concrete effort >>> to specify what goes and what stays, if we want it to be maintainable. >>> The DPDK 1.0 specification, if you will :) >> >> "DPDK 1.0 specification", that's a great project name :-) >> > > Honestly - I would say that I am nervous of this. > > The definition of a DPDK 1.0 specification as a gate to API stability, > feels like a "great plan tomorrow" instead of a "good plan" today. I > think that getting people to dedicate time to such a specification might > prove problematic and I could see this effort being very time consuming. > It might never get completed. > > My preference would be to instead adopt a well-publicised community > timeline for adopting more conservative API maintenance rules. > > Perhaps we could give ourselves as a community a time-limited window in > which to address concerns around the API before they become hardened - > perhaps say until DPDK 19.11 LTS, or something of the order of 6 months > to 9 months. > > We then would know the timeline when niggles like exposure of internal > structures and mbuf structure needed to be sorted by and could > prioritize accordingly. > > Ray K > My worry here is that some API's get more attention than others, but requirements for freezing the API/ABI are applicable to all of them. Everyone loves discussing specifics of mbufs and dev API's, and I have no doubt that DPDK community can arrive at a consensus with regards to mbuf format etc. in a timely manner, since everyone has a vested interest in those covering their use cases. I have way less confidence in us possibly having saner and more maintainable platform initialization code, simply because any attempt to change those will likely be met with "please keep all of the old stuff working", which gets us right back to where we started. -- Thanks, Anatoly