From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74D6426CE; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:10:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424C3402A8; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:10:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D58D4014F for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:10:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1696583429; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hDjvAKe+RQFZcfhJNjpeA91l4lLXtq5ujktUgqsu7U8=; b=fA65iHwLp8X6QQgvljpkTfybhmRtKOMVVBDlMnprvsV1VJf8+Qddmeet2f6fUIAqTzPNdy yx7FB49GCQx69PXz3tRb/ovLCRXrk5HYrEvAwTLV4PX+H7597K/R57fjIioxG425ZCL6sr My9fIi0YvHc/MHi8MJe/Hv1IUJpa8dA= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-411-s_gDydfXMsqoakdfMG9NUw-1; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 05:10:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: s_gDydfXMsqoakdfMG9NUw-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5042d5a3f13so1787898e87.2 for ; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 02:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696583427; x=1697188227; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hDjvAKe+RQFZcfhJNjpeA91l4lLXtq5ujktUgqsu7U8=; b=ieUP3vNnZkzwYTIl/HOcdNtwvIdLF4ombZwaKgVINQdwPJxVoRcXEdIaiYDXsePRjE SrQB/8cdF5lBQ72pIdytvMflnoCchIjqrrfVebwJUF573vDITJKU+mKkyTnxveUzystg pc2fWf5Mc/AQ64NEJzdF6nQ278iT510Q1IULExpy4W8wzwpqhQZKMNDLFubbrRvMOuJw kU1SEFzxmaAsehBkxQ3hvG2ZEHrUi7yXJQDbdSjj8+6XBoQXIkBI2KdAGXedU7kqdKb5 z0T6HhVyHXgXrZH4yUjIzIAshbUJoSyWdhCv9ntP231XdLixHxjxXQNwL4p/xH64vNTH CDgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwydLodoojYIAJQSjdGZ88hccmOP/aGOngq0hOaDu/Ap68O+khf pQfctT2MoLF91y/nFFTzl3xHKEZ5kvDa3OVJ9M91reEleJRat2zvlUvWJ2RHDXVnkzbdKfFFMhM I5TH1A5f9HU1ecpI1vSs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3605:b0:4fb:90c6:c31a with SMTP id f5-20020a056512360500b004fb90c6c31amr6041996lfs.14.1696583426764; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 02:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF00CbbgGCk7fvHq7xBMxkHhbYxrYYPuvMIsK2VyCFBqbNvA9VnmlLt1/AENmZ7PP5TShuOMZMqHKLL3EffQrE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3605:b0:4fb:90c6:c31a with SMTP id f5-20020a056512360500b004fb90c6c31amr6041972lfs.14.1696583426226; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 02:10:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230921042349.104150-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20230921042349.104150-5-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20231004101325.5a7eefbe@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20231004101325.5a7eefbe@hermes.local> From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:10:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] pcapng: move timestamp calculation into pdump To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Reshma Pattan , Quentin Armitage , Thomas Monjalon , Kevin Traynor X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:13=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 10:15:25 +0200 > David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1291 ? > > > > This patch (and patch 3) updates some pcapng API, is it worth a RN upda= te? > > > > > Fixes: c882eb544842 ("pcapng: fix timestamp wrapping in output files"= ) > > > > Is it worth backporting? > > I would say no, as some API update was needed to fix the issue. > > But on the other hand, this is an experimental API, so I prefer to ask. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > Good question. > Is experimental API allowed to change in a stable release? I don't think this is cleary described in our ABI policy. An experimental API may be changed at any time, but nothing is said wrt backports. Breaking an API is always a pain, and for a LTS release it would probably be badly accepted by users. Cc: Kevin for his opinion. We may need a clarification on this topic in the doc. --=20 David Marchand