From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ethdev: add sanity checks to functions
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:29:12 +0100
Message-ID: <2448231.qRa78uBjDE@xps13>
References: <1446552059-5446-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <20151117075309.7f05dc3a@samsung9> <20151124145630.GA19796@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0375958
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:30:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so215099270wmv.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:30:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151124145630.GA19796@bricha3-MOBL3>
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>

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 <bruce.richardson@intel.com> 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?

[...]
> > 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?

> 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.