2016-01-13 14:22, Panu Matilainen:

On 01/13/2016 01:55 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:12:14AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:53:26 +0800
Ziye Yang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This patch is used to add the class_id support
for pci_probe since some devices need the class_info
(class_code, subclass_code, programming_interface)

Signed-off-by: Ziye Yang <redacted>

Since rte_pci is exposed to application this breaks the ABI.

But applications are not going to be defining rte_pci_ids values internally, are
they? That is for drivers to use. Is this really an ABI breakage for applications that we
need to be concerned about?

There might not be applications using it but drivers are ABI consumers 
too - think of 3rd party drivers and such.

Drivers are not ABI consumers in the sense that ABI means
Application Binary Interface.
We are talking about drivers interface here.
When establishing the ABI policy we were discussing about applications only.

I agree we must allow 3rd party drivers but there is no good reason
to try to upgrade DPDK without upgrading/porting the external drivers.
If someone does not want to release its driver and keep upgrading DPDK,
it is acceptable IMHO to force an upgrade of its driver.