On 21/04/2020 10:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 21/04/2020 08:01, Ray Kinsella:
>>
>> On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
That said, once an ABI migrates from
21/04/2020 08:01, Ray Kinsella:
>
> On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
> >>
> >> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
> >>
> >> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_
> >> be chang
On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
>>
>> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
>>
>> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_ be
>> changing.
>> We don't have a strict commitment to t
20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella:
>
> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21.
>
> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_ be
> changing.
> We don't have a strict commitment to the v21 ABI until v20.11.
>
> However if v21 is chang
: Thomas Monjalon ; Richardson, Bruce
>>>
>>> Cc: Trahe, Fiona ; dev@dpdk.org; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
>>> ; Neil Horman ; Luca
>>> Boccassi
>>> ; Kevin Traynor ; Yigit, Ferruh
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version
t; Richardson, Bruce
>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX ; Neil
> Horman
> ; Luca Boccassi ; Kevin Traynor
> ; Yigit, Ferruh ; Trahe, Fiona
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
> Hi all,
>
> >
iuszX
>> ; Neil Horman ; Luca
>> Boccassi
>> ; Kevin Traynor ; Yigit, Ferruh
>>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
>> function
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 17/
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
>
>
> On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
> >> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 1
On 17/04/2020 11:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
>> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed
17/04/2020 11:42, Ray Kinsella:
> On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> >> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona w
On 17/04/2020 10:31, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> 5a. If in 20.05 we ad
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:24:30AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>
>
> On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> >>> 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what
>
On 16/04/2020 11:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
>>> 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what should
>>> the name of the original function be? fn_v20, or fn_v20.0
>>
>>
16/04/2020 11:51, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0100, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> > 5a. If in 20.05 we add a version of a fn which breaks ABI 20.0, what should
> > the name of the original function be? fn_v20, or fn_v20.0
>
> In technical terms it really doesn't matter, it's j
uot;sticks" and belongs to the
> new ABI which then must remain stable til 21.11
For functions that are part of the stable ABI, each change requires a new
version, since there is an expectation that 20.05 builds will also work
with 20.08.
Regards,
/Bruce
>
>
> > -Or
Trahe, Fiona
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 7:27 PM
> To: Ray Kinsella ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona ; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> We're going to n
e-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Ray Kinsella
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:54 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: version rte_cryptodev_info_get
> function
>
>
>
> On 18/03/2020 20:41, Arek Kusztal wrote:
> > This patch adds
On 18/03/2020 20:41, Arek Kusztal wrote:
> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> Node 20.0 function strips capability added in 20.05 release
> to prevent some issues with ABI policy. To do that new capability
Hi Akhil, Thomas,
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:04 PM
> To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> Cc: Ray Kinsella ; Richardson, Bruce
> ; dev@dpdk.org;
> Trahe, Fiona ; dev@dpdk.org; Akhil Goyal
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev]
14/04/2020 14:13, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Ray/Thomas/Bruce,
>
> Could you please help review this patch wrt ABI policy?
> >
> > This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> > Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> > Node 20.0 function strips capability added in
Hi Ray/Thomas/Bruce,
Could you please help review this patch wrt ABI policy?
>
> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
> Node 20.0 function strips capability added in 20.05 release
> to prevent some issues with A
This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get.
Node 20.05 function works the same way it was working before.
Node 20.0 function strips capability added in 20.05 release
to prevent some issues with ABI policy. To do that new capability
array is allocated per device and returned to user i
22 matches
Mail list logo
