From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D1A2C08 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1anm71-0007zQ-89; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:59:07 +0200 To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1459841759-23296-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1459857229-9814-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <5704EFA2.8080901@6wind.com> Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" From: Olivier Matz X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5704F99B.8030500@6wind.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:57:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] fix creation of duplicate lpm and hash 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:57:23 -0000 On 04/06/2016 01:20 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: >> On 04/06/2016 12:32 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: >>> >>> I wonder if you should include something in release notes. >>> We are fixing the API, so I guess we don't need to follow the deprecation >> process, but at least a note in the documentation? >> >> Good idea, I'll send a v4 with the deprecation notice. > > Well, not sure if this needs a deprecation notice. > I mean, it is an API fix: yes, this is changing what the function returns > in a particular situation (when the hash/lpm already exists) , > but it was going against the API documentation, so a deprecation notice should not be necessary. > (just my opinion, I could be quite wrong here :P). > > I was thinking more on adding a note in Resolved issues. Yes, agree, it's a bug fix. Another argument to not follow the API change process is that the initial behavior was to return EEXIST, but it was changed by this commit: http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=916e4f4f4e By the way, the "Fixes:" line was not referencing this commit in the v3, I'll also change that in v4. Thanks, Olivier