From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/power: add turbo functions to version.map Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:52:42 +0200 Message-ID: <3021831.i70dt7xi5c@xps> References: <1506946848-173847-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1917865.rASfWJCVJS@xps> <995cb4f2-44e0-9c4e-45ac-b97a2199a0f9@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Hunt, David" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29A41B248 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 18:52:43 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <995cb4f2-44e0-9c4e-45ac-b97a2199a0f9@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 02/10/2017 18:25, Hunt, David: > Hi Thomas, > > > On 2/10/2017 4:39 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 02/10/2017 17:06, Hunt, David: > >> On 2/10/2017 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> +DPDK_17.11 { > >>>> + global: > >>>> + > >>>> + rte_power_acpi_turbo_status; > >>> Is it really the function you want to expose? > >>> rte_power_turbo_status seems more generic. > >> Not really, it was in there for completeness, but users should be able > >> to keep track of the turbo'd cores, so not really needed. > >> > >>> More comments about what is part of the API: > >>> If you do not want to expose ACPI and VM implementations, > >>> it should not be part of the rte_* include files. > >> I'll address the above comments in the next version. > > > > You did not address the comment about what is rte_*.h. > > If you do not want to expose everything, you should move it to > > another .h file. > > > > Files starting with rte_ are included in doxygen API doc. > > Only rte_power.h is installed. > > The installed include, the doxygen doc and the map file > > should all expose the same API consistently. > > > > I think a cleanup is needed. > > While I agree a cleanup is needed, this small patch is only intended to > fix the priority issue of the shared library builds, which are broken at > the moment. > The initial patch should have had rte_power_turbo_status, not > rte_power_acpi_turbo_status. > Rather than moving code around at this stage, I propose having the three > exposed functions in the map file (with the correct names). OK, so we need a v3 (v2 has only 2 functions). > Then, later on, I can do an ABI breakage notification for the next > release to rename all the other rte*.h files, as some consumers of DPDK > may be using those directly, at which stage we will be down to just > exporting the functions in rte_power.h. > Does that sound OK with you? OK, thanks