From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3DD2B99 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:09:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3748721E5A; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Apr 2019 04:09:59 -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=ih3rg6/N+mH2L0Xm8bnaBwwDWhukQwwCPxY5B/qXkaU=; b=rmBAUIOuXW9f rRVtaPktIo+9nk+1ytisgrdQD01lKACEXP+c98MBZRgsEUwLIa6Cd+dTXYYsMW4E OjfUk3pMHtUffZGCQ9I6KtCFYmG2QCaf4e4701KYAJadXOS+hXuhxqtv9NzWa61O p7zr/jIMv2rp2kKKrNzyarYFylueR30= 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=fm2; bh=ih3rg6/N+mH2L0Xm8bnaBwwDWhukQwwCPxY5B/qXk aU=; b=WMdRPBM/6Augz+IX61OYdmmZk7e0+q0Bl3GPdlcQeexM+KwCzXiDCLW+M ksNUENiWZa7qfWUJmDznF9cjq7W7ZEyJVoWzHWeUOQ7Vl9xNLJuiPxnu1fE5IE8R N0YVD3msTwBfU9ArRXfo06ithaF9+jdta4qkz6EUaZoVWg0O+OCTxTpqcc6D7dsF zK8oiiKL1n2HFZay0gl8G+4df60s08uYVs9DikCtbswlUhGfFf8qGt0ygVKPPwlb eKf34RFuq3qcPB8g985Oa0rZ+gNv0/EQ9WmnyhGj13dFloJ9/anqUPBqf71hThsO PqooPPMl4u+0Q2hXjPoDwPS3J//7w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrleefgdduvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpegthhgvtghkqdgvgihpvghrihhmvghnthgrlhdqshihmhhsrdhshhenucfk phepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthh homhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 B04A110319; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev , Andrew Rybchenko Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:09:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1668070.OiOMRC6GPs@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <4063619.5t9VujUhGY@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add siblings iterators 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:09:59 -0000 01/04/2019 08:46, David Marchand: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:16 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 19/03/2019 19:04, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On 3/19/2019 5:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > >>> +uint16_t __rte_experimental > > > >> > > > >> Do we need _rte_experimental on function definitions? I guess only in > > .h file, > > > >> function declaration is enough. > > > > > > > > Yes we need them both in .h and .c files. > > > > > > Why we need them in .c file? > > > I think the compiler is interested in ones in .h file, because of the > > > experimental checks. > > > > We need the tag in .c file because a check is done in the ELF object > > by buildtools/check-experimental-syms.sh > > > > ? > The attribute should be inherited from the declaration in the header. > If you have a case where it does not work, I'd like to look at it. I don't know such case, it was just a belief. If we can confirm it works well with tag in headers only, I suggest we remove all of them at once. For this patch, I prefer being on the safe side for now. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C78A068B for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A887E316B; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3DD2B99 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:09:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3748721E5A; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Apr 2019 04:09:59 -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=ih3rg6/N+mH2L0Xm8bnaBwwDWhukQwwCPxY5B/qXkaU=; b=rmBAUIOuXW9f rRVtaPktIo+9nk+1ytisgrdQD01lKACEXP+c98MBZRgsEUwLIa6Cd+dTXYYsMW4E OjfUk3pMHtUffZGCQ9I6KtCFYmG2QCaf4e4701KYAJadXOS+hXuhxqtv9NzWa61O p7zr/jIMv2rp2kKKrNzyarYFylueR30= 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=fm2; bh=ih3rg6/N+mH2L0Xm8bnaBwwDWhukQwwCPxY5B/qXk aU=; b=WMdRPBM/6Augz+IX61OYdmmZk7e0+q0Bl3GPdlcQeexM+KwCzXiDCLW+M ksNUENiWZa7qfWUJmDznF9cjq7W7ZEyJVoWzHWeUOQ7Vl9xNLJuiPxnu1fE5IE8R N0YVD3msTwBfU9ArRXfo06ithaF9+jdta4qkz6EUaZoVWg0O+OCTxTpqcc6D7dsF zK8oiiKL1n2HFZay0gl8G+4df60s08uYVs9DikCtbswlUhGfFf8qGt0ygVKPPwlb eKf34RFuq3qcPB8g985Oa0rZ+gNv0/EQ9WmnyhGj13dFloJ9/anqUPBqf71hThsO PqooPPMl4u+0Q2hXjPoDwPS3J//7w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrleefgdduvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpegthhgvtghkqdgvgihpvghrihhmvghnthgrlhdqshihmhhsrdhshhenucfk phepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthh homhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 B04A110319; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev , Andrew Rybchenko Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:09:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1668070.OiOMRC6GPs@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <4063619.5t9VujUhGY@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add siblings iterators 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" Message-ID: <20190401080955.HdLzJIHNVldDALz8-2qb236ugSeCiTlEid7tnptsKIQ@z> 01/04/2019 08:46, David Marchand: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:16 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 19/03/2019 19:04, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On 3/19/2019 5:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > >>> +uint16_t __rte_experimental > > > >> > > > >> Do we need _rte_experimental on function definitions? I guess only in > > .h file, > > > >> function declaration is enough. > > > > > > > > Yes we need them both in .h and .c files. > > > > > > Why we need them in .c file? > > > I think the compiler is interested in ones in .h file, because of the > > > experimental checks. > > > > We need the tag in .c file because a check is done in the ELF object > > by buildtools/check-experimental-syms.sh > > > > ? > The attribute should be inherited from the declaration in the header. > If you have a case where it does not work, I'd like to look at it. I don't know such case, it was just a belief. If we can confirm it works well with tag in headers only, I suggest we remove all of them at once. For this patch, I prefer being on the safe side for now.