From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] eal: return true or false from lcore role check function Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:04:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3633241.u0AhPmFv0D@xps> References: <1515005015-31990-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <1713856.qAfyk3hvam@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com To: "Carrillo, Erik G" Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E949B16E for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:05:00 +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" 12/01/2018 19:01, Carrillo, Erik G: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 12/01/2018 00:09, Carrillo, Erik G: > > > Hi Aaron, > > > > > > From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole@redhat.com] > > > > > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > > > > > Erik Gabriel Carrillo writes: > > > > > > > > > Update rte_lcore_has_role() so that it returns true/false instead > > > > > of success/failure. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 78666372fa2b ("eal: add function to check lcore role") > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I believe this breaks the published abi - Success is now 'true', and > > > > failure is 'false'; previously success would be 0 == false. You'll > > > > need to invert the test, or note that the abi is breaking (since > > > > semantically any caller will need to invert the test). > > > > > > Good point. Though it seems like an API change rather than an ABI change > > to me, would it still be handled the same way in terms of notice? Also, the > > ABI policy states, "ABI breakage due to changes such as reorganizing public > > structure fields for aesthetic or readability purposes should be avoided." > > Perhaps I should go with an alternate patch that fixes the caller. > > > > Most of the times, an API change is an ABI change. > > Please make a deprecation notice. > > Ok, thanks Thomas - will do. Should I mark the above patch as "deferred" for the time being? Yes, thanks All deferred patches are set to New when starting a new release cycle. So it should not be lost :)