From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:57:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5704F99B.8030500@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8973C8EAE57@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 04/06/2016 01:20 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>> On 04/06/2016 12:32 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if you should include something in release notes.
>>> We are fixing the API, so I guess we don't need to follow the deprecation
>> process, but at least a note in the documentation?
>>
>> Good idea, I'll send a v4 with the deprecation notice.
>
> Well, not sure if this needs a deprecation notice.
> I mean, it is an API fix: yes, this is changing what the function returns
> in a particular situation (when the hash/lpm already exists) ,
> but it was going against the API documentation, so a deprecation notice should not be necessary.
> (just my opinion, I could be quite wrong here :P).
>
> I was thinking more on adding a note in Resolved issues.
Yes, agree, it's a bug fix.
Another argument to not follow the API change process is that
the initial behavior was to return EEXIST, but it was changed
by this commit:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=916e4f4f4e
By the way, the "Fixes:" line was not referencing this commit
in the v3, I'll also change that in v4.
Thanks,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-06 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-15 12:25 [RFC] hash/lpm: return NULL if the object exists Olivier Matz
2016-03-25 10:32 ` Olivier Matz
2016-03-25 10:45 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-30 15:30 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix lpm and hash creation Olivier Matz
2016-03-30 15:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] lpm: allocation of an existing object should fail Olivier Matz
2016-03-30 21:46 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-31 7:35 ` Olivier Matz
2016-04-01 16:25 ` Olivier Matz
2016-03-31 10:55 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-30 15:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] hash: " Olivier Matz
2016-03-30 15:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] hash: keep the list locked at creation Olivier Matz
2016-03-30 15:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] autotest: fix func reentrancy Olivier Matz
2016-03-31 7:35 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix lpm and hash creation Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] lpm: allocation of an existing object should fail Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] hash: " Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] hash: keep the list locked at creation Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:05 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2016-04-05 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] autotest: fix func reentrancy Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:00 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2016-04-05 11:53 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:53 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] lpm: allocation of an existing object should fail Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:53 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] hash: " Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:53 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] hash: keep the list locked at creation Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 11:53 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] autotest: fix func reentrancy Olivier Matz
2016-04-05 15:51 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-06 10:11 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2016-04-06 10:32 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2016-04-06 11:14 ` Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 11:20 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2016-04-06 11:57 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-04-06 13:27 ` [PATCH v4 " Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 13:27 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] lpm: allocation of an existing object should fail Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 13:27 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] hash: " Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] hash: keep the list locked at creation Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] autotest: fix func reentrancy Olivier Matz
2016-04-06 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash Thomas Monjalon
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=5704F99B.8030500@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.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.