From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA7EC95A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:54:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org
 ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1Z8V1c-0007j2-SB; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:54:42 -0400
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:54:34 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20150626145434.GB27458@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <1435088014-18973-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
 <1435242949-31520-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
 <1435242949-31520-3-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
 <2425730.LWzQFRnlUA@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2425730.LWzQFRnlUA@xps13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv3 3/3] ABI: Add some documentation
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:54:44 -0000

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:00:17PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-25 10:35, Neil Horman:
> > v3)
> >      * Fixed in tact -> intact
> >      * Added docs to address static linking
> >      * Removed duplicate documentation from release notes
> 
> It seems you missed some of my previous comments.
> 
> [...]
> > +* ``VERSION_SYMBOL(b, e, n)``: Creates a symbol version table entry binding
> > +  unversioned symbol ``b`` to the internal function ``b_e``.
> 
> Should a versioned symbol <b>@DPDK_<n>
> 
Sure.

> > +* ``BASE_SYMBOL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version table entry binding
> > +  unversioned symbol ``b`` to the internal function ``b_e``.
> 
> Please give a use case of BASE_SYMBOL.
> 
No, I'd rather remove it if you really insist.  As noted before the way we set
up the version map files means we currently have no need for this particular
directive.  I only included it for completeness.  I think an example use in
light of that fact would only confuse people.  If you're going to draw a line in
the sand around it, I'll just remove it.

> [...]
> > +The addition of the new block tells the linker that a new version node is
> > +available (DPDK_2.1), which contains the symbol rte_acl_create, and inherits the
> > +symbols from the DPDK_2.0 node.
> 
> which contains the old version of the symbol rte_acl_create
> 
I don't understand, is it not obvious that the DPDK_2.0 node contains the 2.0
version of the symbol and the DPDK_2.1 node contains the 2.1 version of the
symbol?

Neil