From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Remy Horton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: pre-emptively document rte_eth_dev_reset error code Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:53:23 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171019134827.22740-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, wei.dai@intel.com, Luca Boccassi To: luca.boccassi@gmail.com, dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A5E1B236 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:53:26 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.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" On 19/10/2017 14:48, luca.boccassi@gmail.com wrote: > Document it immediately even if it's not yet supported, so that users > and developers can already take into account about this use case, and > thus avoid an API-incompatible change later on. I'm not sure about documenting unimplemented features, as API docs ought to describe what the code currently does. Then again reason seems OK and I don't think there's hard guidelines on this.. > This is based on real-world production usage and customer escalations, > using earlier patches from Intel. Can you give the patchwork link for these patches? ..Remy