From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier Matz Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:57:15 +0200 Message-ID: <5704F99B.8030500@6wind.com> References: <1459841759-23296-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1459857229-9814-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <5704EFA2.8080901@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D1A2C08 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:57:23 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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