From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Why rte_snprintf at all? Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:22:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1464235.EKIaBTSv1Q@xps13> References: <20140623101603.54a5d887@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CEE1C5C@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "Richardson, Bruce" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CEE1C5C-kPTMFJFq+rELt2AQoY/u9bfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-06-23 22:53, Richardson, Bruce: > As for the #define, it's a quick fix, except that we end up having to keep > it forever as the code using the function will never get changed to use > rte_snprintf. Given it's just a one-line macro, it's probably not a big > deal in this case, but I'd rather see us take the approach that after > something has been flagged as deprecated for a certain amount of time e.g. > 1 to 2 full release cycles, it is removed completely and deleted. Otherwise > I worry about us having to maintain a bunch of stuff for legacy reasons, > that really should be got rid of. We should not just remove something > completely in a single release, but I think we need to have a way to remove > things completely once the user has been given sufficient warning. I agree. -- Thomas