From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671A537B8 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:49:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so32636129wme.1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=pSA4LmJ9/DMhGecwTBoDC6jzI+x+L81PTIHdWQ/+rjQ=; b=C+KdkEc9eS5dK8vlgHSXzOxyc3HtK1nVdveB7g2rR9IXnFn8XisJcQFtxsbGz4jmKv IKs/Btjcpu42EKkO7IRBqGoLZ26gs1T3U2IOqS3bck4ECIjDvDTnh4Kcd4681Ks+DrwU ca6mxGNagXR264zmV3tH/WKdZI1ZkMESB2QPLjZZ5GZ4DP2ieTE1xjtkppLGl3tWqOVv 1ahBhPGDkyfh0T22MBReUoFDlmi8XbjlNvlEEI82+h5SVGLrTHRnj8nE00pPefm0do1f fjl6Jh41tqOwMO++s1/SoBtmCu7aDqcLjUZDDGSot47S7qytBXrz5GWbA7PQb4Yes3uG 9gGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=pSA4LmJ9/DMhGecwTBoDC6jzI+x+L81PTIHdWQ/+rjQ=; b=Y/fyZTO+QZVG+GmZ8Pz6X3i9rNwaDeyPPMNOfndHS6acSPDqFsxEoQzRbXrrX6Qxeb qIdNp0vX+g0Aao70LKwLI3wIag7P/0HP2cYFCsu/HP3sqOH+qpked8JNXvAUOn7+Gdun +lLuWMk/3gaAet2bJaeRK4dSPhw3bVug23C2LLtuTfW+bIak4a1smm1FFROm1xJ48GP4 adf5a3Dkm87iZJYdJV2O8saa584+f4fbLiI83WwAZKyMp4gXWyHtP5V0vOvOfjunx0z6 C0STGeKTwxdQMyIRsD3BB4gLJ7CsqIo3OwEXPK9j1i7A0gpF9aqlKeLCZEy9R1u6H4kB 7fMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnh8Dx9jGh11RRGb4dvw4unVNzAaYo5Dow5n61X94PMIo3MSvFIDS7UJ+92+KNFiOmbwIJa X-Received: by 10.194.188.6 with SMTP id fw6mr42055172wjc.95.1448380184277; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id kj3sm18933575wjb.19.2015.11.24.07.49.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:49:43 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1913142.SPt0B3eznO@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151124154548.GA17696@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1446552059-5446-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <2448231.qRa78uBjDE@xps13> <20151124154548.GA17696@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] ethdev: add sanity checks to functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:49:44 -0000 2015-11-24 15:45, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-11-24 14:56, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:53:09AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:21:07 +0000 > > > > Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > -static inline uint32_t > > > > > +static inline int > > > > Are we talking about this change only? > > Or the move in the first patch from .c to .h? > > > > The move is the ABI breaker. > > > [...] > > > > This breaks ABI since older application built with debug will try > > > > and find the shared library entry for the routine. > > > > > > Ok, so assuming we care about the ABI for debug builds, > > > > The return type is not only for debug build? > > > > > is it enough to just push a patch with a deprecation notice for this for 2.2, > > > > The ABI is already broken for ethdev in 2.2. > > So the symbol move should not hurt more. > > And the API change (return type) should not be a big deal, > > but at least an API change notification is required in the release notes. > > Other opinion? > > Ok, it makes sense. > > > > > > or do I need to see about doing a new patchset with the NEXT_ABI macros > > > included in it? My preference is obviously for the former. > > > > No NEXT_ABI is required when ABI is already broken IMHO. > > If ethdev ABI is already broken, then sure, this additional break for debug > build is no big deal, I think. > > I can do a respin of these two patches to include an API note for release notes. > However, I see now that I also need to remove the functions from the map file. > I could do with some help to make sure I do this correctly though. Reading through > the doc on ABI versionning, it looks like I should completely move all existing > functions from the existing release versions and move them to a new 2.2 section, > dropping the four now-inline functions along the way. Is this the correct thing > to do? I think yes. Removing some symbols means rewriting the symbol map from scratch. But we never did it yet.