From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antti Kantee Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] eal: support different modules Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:08:53 +0200 Message-ID: <51ACBF95.1030109@iki.fi> References: <20130530171234.301927271@vyatta.com> <20130530171626.948387515@vyatta.com> <51AC5A99.1050207@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51AC5A99.1050207-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 03.06.2013 10:58, Damien Millescamps wrote: >> }; >> >> -/** Device needs igb_uio kernel module */ >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO 0x0001 >> /** Device driver must be registered several times until failure */ >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0002 >> +#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0001 > You are breaking a public API here, and I don't see any technical reason > to do so. The RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO flag could be deprecated, but > there is no way its value could be recycled into an already existing flag. Is breaking the API a bad thing in this context? IMHO the initialization APIs need work before they're general enough and perpetually supporting the current ones seems like an unnecessary burden. I'm trying to understand the general guidelines of the project. (and nittily, recycling flag values is fine for static-only libs as long as you remove the old macro, but of course removal is the API breakage you mentioned)