From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: API feature check _HAS_ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:10:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20151129091011.GG19023@scylladb.com> References: <13076727.eWbPQotoSK@xps13> <565AC060.1060903@cloudius-systems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Vlad Zolotarov Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675DE7E93 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:10:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so95806974wmu.0 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 01:10:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565AC060.1060903@cloudius-systems.com> 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 Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:07:44AM +0200, Vlad Zolotarov wrote: > > > On 11/26/15 22:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >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? > > The main purpose of the above macro was to identify the presence of the new > field in the rte_eth_rxmode during the > period of time when there was no other way to know it. Once this may be > concluded based on the release version I see no > reason to keep it. > Concluding things based on release version does not work so well for back ports. > >It's time to fix it before releasing the 2.2 version. > -- Gleb.