From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic user callback Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1968690.y4bVNFghIW@xps> References: <1520360928-9375-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <81ecbc4a-0200-3b42-8da1-fe87e8c14c04@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org To: Arnon Warshavsky , "Burakov, Anatoly" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D4A4CA1 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:07:11 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 07/03/2018 14:23, Arnon Warshavsky: > > > > Can we add a compile warning for adding new rte_panic's into code? It's a > > nice tool while debugging, but it probably shouldn't be in any new > > production code. Yes could be nice to automatically detect it in drivers/ or lib/ directories. > I thought about renaming the current function and calls to something like > deprecated_rte_panic() > , and keep the old API with __rte_deprecated. > Is this kind of API break acceptable? No, rte_panic can be used in applications.