[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce API changes for device objects

[Jan Viktorin]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:00:43 +0200
David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com> wrote:
> > On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 17:33:17 +0200
> > David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Following discussions with Jan, here is a deprecation notice to prepare for
> >> hotplug and rte_device changes to come in 16.07.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com>
> >> ---
> >>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> index 98d5529..d749e5d 100644
> >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> @@ -8,6 +8,18 @@ API and ABI deprecation notices are to be posted here.
> >>  Deprecation Notices
> >>  -------------------
> >>
> >> +* The ethdev hotplug API is going to be moved to EAL with a notification
> >> +  mechanism added to crypto and ethdev libraries so that hotplug is now
> >> +  available to both of them. This API will be stripped of the device arguments
> >> +  so that it only cares about hotplugging.
> >> +
> >> +* Structures embodying pci and vdev devices are going to be reworked to
> >> +  integrate new common rte_device / rte_driver objects (see
> >> +  http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-January/031390.html).
> >> +  ethdev and crypto libraries will then only handle those objects so that they
> >> +  do not need to care about the kind of devices that are being used, making it
> >> +  easier to add new buses later.  
> >
> > As a result, the current rte_driver structure will be renamed to
> > rte_module and probably reworked in some way due to its semantics and
> > potential name clash with the new rte_driver struct.  
> 
> If we just introduce some macros like RTE_MODULE_INIT() /
> RTE_MODULE_EXIT(), we don't need a rte_module object at the moment ?
> 

Well, possibly, we don't need it. At least, it might be hidden and not
being a part of the API/ABI. Do you need an ack for this?