From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: replace rte_panic instances to return an error value Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:21:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4227625.3KJ1syXLso@xps> References: <1521581285-4709-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <1645860.rB6cz0fKiK@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, declan.doherty@intel.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, Bruce Richardson , ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org To: Arnon Warshavsky Return-path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF224CA1 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:21:51 +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" 21/03/2018 00:04, Arnon Warshavsky: > > > > You are talking about API, and I agree the old applications can keep > > considering the functions as void. > > But I was talking about ABI, meaning: can we use an old application > > without recompiling and update only the DPDK (in .so file)? > > > > > > You are right of course. Once again I mixed the two.. > I will modify accordingly I don't know what needs to be modified. I think the first step is to clearly identified the different kind of changes by splitting your patch. Then we will decide how to integrate them.