On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:18 AM Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is> wrote:
> Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 2:56 AM Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > In terms of API stability/versioning/packaging, once this series is
> >> > reviewed, the plan is to cut a "gfxstream upstream release branch".
> We
> >> > will have the same API guarantees as any other QEMU project then, i.e
> no
> >> > breaking API changes for 5 years.
> >>
> >> What about Rutabaga?
> >
> > Yes, rutabaga + gfxstream will both be versioned and maintain API
> > backwards compatibility in line with QEMU guidelines.
>
> In that case, I should draw your attention to
> <https://crrev.com/c/4584252>, which I've just realised while testing v2
> of your series here breaks the build of the rutabaga ffi, and which will
> require the addition of a "prot" field to struct rutabaga_handle (a
> breaking change). I'll push a new version of that CL to fix rutabaga
> ffi in the next few days.
>
Sorry, I didn't see this until now. At first glance, do we need to modify
the rutabaga_handle? Can't we do fcntl(.., GET_FL) to get the access flags
when needed?
Since this is already coming up, before the release has even been made,
> is it worth exploring how to limit the rutabaga API to avoid more
> breaking changes after the release? Could there be more use of opaque
> structs, for example?
>
> (CCing the crosvm list)
>