From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709B1A00E6 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:34:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474141B950; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:34:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1CE2C6A; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFAA454; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:34:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=lmXjblb/hbB9q3AilRCEw+f8u7RJlKMZL02K2Rxdd3A=; b=rXtTsa5egiHL 4kxSPjE7e4xJi2oBOJfp186wVH2xPFJt7mJdA1q7jlq+mL+VkyYbViP3vZYnhd5J sNhqd/95Ma9nL2/nMU8TZS8C73a5bBQkM0BE4uDM37xaYo1QaQ7Z++9biId3QsmB 3EK6GyI48IQ7vZgY7k4g2TiC8b1puRI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=lmXjblb/hbB9q3AilRCEw+f8u7RJlKMZL02K2Rxdd 3A=; b=FyYTQm90dQEvn3G9l/OkEv6YEjy//qRXrsRE9/gdCEMFY16QOzBhSL/Lr TvghurgDpHtEMWJtpJrnn1wTMptA4tbwXnd5vcFgK8NLBHNeOIU71Vq29HDu9Vbv rvvmdNnIbApDapsddx4snpEgi2tDNynaNNZ6hM+7GdqoJnLupBpONYpp9Ha2rDOn eLKcwYxOF2owMRwlePv7vZE0m+CLOiEg1j4ddZXhZZUPYV9ZMNE4m355Cx4Qvqu5 p+DJRO4CpZXEGUhfp8Iji9SGWft9g2JeTUcI95ehf4Djb0DM2Zcx+qeruLB5M6bW /Yv4oBJzkcTWQBW+qVHw14ugHFzXA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrgeekgddtiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A3648005C; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:34:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Harman Kalra Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" , "remy.horton@intel.com" , "reshma.pattan@intel.com" , "anatoly.burakov@intel.com" , "marko.kovacevic@intel.com" , "john.mcnamara@intel.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:34:07 +0200 Message-ID: <2087123.3zRFCGiTdz@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190711081229.GA131264@outlook.office365.com> References: <3AEA2BF9852C6F48A459DA490692831F2A4881E7@irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com> <4424857.lkIZ7qNV9V@xps> <20190711081229.GA131264@outlook.office365.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 1/2] metrics: new API to deinitialise metrics library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/07/2019 10:12, Harman Kalra: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:08:09AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > " > > I would vote for not backporting this new API. > > " > > > > In case it is not clear, this comment means you should not Cc stable@dpdk.org > > I added CC because of the following comment from Remy: > " > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:21:21PM +0000, Remy Horton wrote: > > This patchset is in that grey area between new feature and bugfix so > > it might need to be CC'd to stable@dpdk.org > " > > Shall I remove it now? Yes, this is my opinion and we did not get any other opinion. I don't think the issue is critical enough to backport a new API.