From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic user callback Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1520360928-9375-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <304114136.g7uiPYdxRp@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Arnon Warshavsky Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83195F34 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:05:55 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <304114136.g7uiPYdxRp@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 07-Mar-18 8:32 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi, > > 06/03/2018 19:28, Arnon Warshavsky: >> The use case addressed here is dpdk environment init >> aborting the process due to panic, >> preventing the calling process from running its own tear-down actions. > > Thank you for working on this long standing issue. > >> A preferred, though ABI breaking solution would be >> to have the environment init always return a value >> rather than abort upon distress. > > Yes, it is the preferred solution. > We should not use exit (panic & co) inside a library. > It is important enough to break the API. +1, panic exists mostly for historical reasons AFAIK. it's a pity i didn't think of it at the time of submitting the memory hotplug RFC, because i now hit the same issue with the v1 - we might panic while holding a lock, and didn't realize that it was an API break to change this behavior. Can this really go into current release without deprecation notices? -- Thanks, Anatoly