From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
To: "Wojciech Żmuda" <woz@semihalf.com>,
"Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] af_packet: make the device detachable
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:43:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56D5645D.3050304@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAaY-j=xTa2RwZxgikYX54VSz2b_g89egTqo9dJWBHg5MQ88tw@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/29/2016 08:22 PM, Wojciech Żmuda wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
>> Does making rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit local result in an ABI breakage?
> If someone uses it in their app, they'll be forced to change it.
> However, as this function is not intentionally public and there is API
> to create devices that finally calls rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit(), I'm
> not sure if any special caution is needed here.
Yeah this is a bit of a gray area. Strictly speaking it certainly is an
ABI break, but given that the function is documented as internal-only
and there's a proper, public way to create the device, there's no good
excuse for anybody to be using it. I think its okay to remove without
going through the deprecation process.
>
>> Should the DPDK_2.0 structure be kept and a DPDK_2.3 structure added?
> Should it be just `DPDK_2.3 { local: *} DPDK_2.0`? Doesn't inheritance
> of DPDK_2.0 make the symbol also global in 2.3?
Since there are no symbols being exported I dont see any point in
changing the version, just drop the accidentally exported symbol from
the 2.0 definition.
- Panu -
>> A deprecation notice may need to be added to the doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst file.
> As far as I understand, deprecation.rst is used to announce something
> will be removed in the future release. Changes already done should be
> moved from deprecation.rst to the release's .rst file. At least, this
> is what I see in commit logs. If this change should be announced in
> deprecation.rst, does this mean there should be another patch in the
> future (after 2.3 release?) making this function static? And that
> future patch will add DPDK_2.3 structure in the map file?
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Wojtek
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-01 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-11 16:37 [PATCH v3] af_packet: make the device detachable Wojciech Zmuda
2016-02-24 14:08 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-02-29 18:22 ` Wojciech Żmuda
2016-03-01 9:43 ` Panu Matilainen [this message]
2016-03-02 11:47 ` Wojciech Żmuda
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56D5645D.3050304@redhat.com \
--to=pmatilai@redhat.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=woz@semihalf.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.