Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/2] eal: replace libc-based random number generation with LFSR

["Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>]

On 2019-04-23 13:33, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 07:44:39PM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 17:52, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-22 13:34, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +uint64_t __rte_experimental
>>>>> +rte_rand(void)
>>>> Do you really want to mark this as experimental?  I know it will
>>>> trigger the
>>>> symbol checker with a warning if you don't, but this function
>>>> already existed
>>>> previously and was accepted as part of the ABI.  Given that the
>>>> prototype hasn't
>>>> changed, I think you just need to accept it as a non-experimental
>>>> function
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll remove the experimental tag and move it into the 19_05 section
>>> (without suggesting it should go into 19.05). That maneuver seems not to
>>> trigger any build warnings/errors.
>>>
>>
>> OK, so that wasn't true. It does trigger a build error, courtesy of
>> buildtools/check-experimental-syms.sh.
>>
>> I can't see any obvious way around it. Ideas, anyone?
>>
> No, we would have to waive it.

I don't understand. What do you mean?

> But its pretty clear that This function has been
> around forever, so I think it would be worse to demote it to an experimental
> symbol.  The only thing you're doing here is moving it from an inline function
> (which is arguably part of the ABI, even if it never appeared as a symbol in the
> ELF file), to a fully fleged symbol with a new implementation.
> 

I agree it shouldn't be marked experimental. The reason for doing so was 
to avoid triggering a build error.