[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>  
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
> +
> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,

rte_kni_request is between KNI library and KNI kernel module, shouldn't
be part of API.

> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,

Again,  rte_kni_mbuf should be only concern of KNI kernel module.

> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.

rte_kni_device_info also between KNI library and KNI kernel module.

I think deprecation notice not required for above ones.

But you KNI patchset updates rte_kni_conf and rte_kni_ops.
These are part of KNI API and changing them cause ABI breakage,

but if new fields appended in these structs, this will not cause an ABI
breakage, and I think that is better to do instead of deprecation
notice, what do you think?


And apart from above ABI issues,
adding new fields to "rte_kni_ops" means DPDK application that use KNI
should implement them, right?
So this suggest everyone require to set promiscuity of KNI device should
implement this.

Can't we find another way that all can benefit from a common implementation?

Thanks,
ferruh