From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ethdev: add sanity checks to functions Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1913142.SPt0B3eznO@xps13> References: <1446552059-5446-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <2448231.qRa78uBjDE@xps13> <20151124154548.GA17696@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671A537B8 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:49:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so32636129wme.1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151124154548.GA17696@bricha3-MOBL3> 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" 2015-11-24 15:45, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-11-24 14:56, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:53:09AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:21:07 +0000 > > > > Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > -static inline uint32_t > > > > > +static inline int > > > > Are we talking about this change only? > > Or the move in the first patch from .c to .h? > > > > The move is the ABI breaker. > > > [...] > > > > This breaks ABI since older application built with debug will try > > > > and find the shared library entry for the routine. > > > > > > Ok, so assuming we care about the ABI for debug builds, > > > > The return type is not only for debug build? > > > > > is it enough to just push a patch with a deprecation notice for this for 2.2, > > > > The ABI is already broken for ethdev in 2.2. > > So the symbol move should not hurt more. > > And the API change (return type) should not be a big deal, > > but at least an API change notification is required in the release notes. > > Other opinion? > > Ok, it makes sense. > > > > > > or do I need to see about doing a new patchset with the NEXT_ABI macros > > > included in it? My preference is obviously for the former. > > > > No NEXT_ABI is required when ABI is already broken IMHO. > > If ethdev ABI is already broken, then sure, this additional break for debug > build is no big deal, I think. > > I can do a respin of these two patches to include an API note for release notes. > However, I see now that I also need to remove the functions from the map file. > I could do with some help to make sure I do this correctly though. Reading through > the doc on ABI versionning, it looks like I should completely move all existing > functions from the existing release versions and move them to a new 2.2 section, > dropping the four now-inline functions along the way. Is this the correct thing > to do? I think yes. Removing some symbols means rewriting the symbol map from scratch. But we never did it yet.