From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <remy.horton@intel.com> Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A5E1B236 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:53:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Oct 2017 07:53:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,402,1503385200"; d="scan'208";a="1207640450" Received: from rhorton-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.230.40]) ([163.33.230.40]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2017 07:53:23 -0700 To: luca.boccassi@gmail.com, dev@dpdk.org References: <20171019134827.22740-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, wei.dai@intel.com, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Limited Message-ID: <f8b9604d-c718-8b1a-c97d-3c3ebd24a295@intel.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:53:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: pre-emptively document rte_eth_dev_reset error code X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:53:26 -0000 On 19/10/2017 14:48, luca.boccassi@gmail.com wrote: > Document it immediately even if it's not yet supported, so that users > and developers can already take into account about this use case, and > thus avoid an API-incompatible change later on. I'm not sure about documenting unimplemented features, as API docs ought to describe what the code currently does. Then again reason seems OK and I don't think there's hard guidelines on this.. > This is based on real-world production usage and customer escalations, > using earlier patches from Intel. Can you give the patchwork link for these patches? ..Remy