From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: API feature check _HAS_
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:35:03 +0100
Message-ID: <13076727.eWbPQotoSK@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
To: dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB0C9239
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:36:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so45546314wmv.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:36:23 -0800 (PST)
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

When introducing LRO, Vlad has defined the macro RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h?id=8eecb329

It allows to use the feature without version check (before the release or
after a backport).
Do you think it is useful?
Should we define other macros RTE_[API]_HAS_[FEATURE] for each new feature
or API change?
It's time to fix it before releasing the 2.2 version.