From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0C8C478 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:53:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from voip-107-15-76-160.kyn.rr.com ([107.15.76.160] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Z9ZUj-0006xq-P9; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:53:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:53:09 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20150629135309.GC2177@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1435088014-18973-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <2425730.LWzQFRnlUA@xps13> <20150626145434.GB27458@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1543730.acTPx5xhcA@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1543730.acTPx5xhcA@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv3 3/3] ABI: Add some documentation 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: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:53:21 -0000 On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:24:42PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-06-26 10:54, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:00:17PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2015-06-25 10:35, Neil Horman: > > > > +* ``VERSION_SYMBOL(b, e, n)``: Creates a symbol version table entry binding > > > > + unversioned symbol ``b`` to the internal function ``b_e``. > > > > > > Should a versioned symbol @DPDK_ > > > > > Sure. > > When fixed, this series can be applied. > > > > > +* ``BASE_SYMBOL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version table entry binding > > > > + unversioned symbol ``b`` to the internal function ``b_e``. > > > > > > Please give a use case of BASE_SYMBOL. > > > > > No, I'd rather remove it if you really insist. As noted before the way we set > > up the version map files means we currently have no need for this particular > > directive. I only included it for completeness. I think an example use in > > light of that fact would only confuse people. If you're going to draw a line in > > the sand around it, I'll just remove it. > > No line in the sand, but it seems better to remove it to avoid confusing people. > ABI compat is already enough difficult to understand ;) > > > > [...] > > > > +The addition of the new block tells the linker that a new version node is > > > > +available (DPDK_2.1), which contains the symbol rte_acl_create, and inherits the > > > > +symbols from the DPDK_2.0 node. > > > > > > which contains the old version of the symbol rte_acl_create > > > > > I don't understand, is it not obvious that the DPDK_2.0 node contains the 2.0 > > version of the symbol and the DPDK_2.1 node contains the 2.1 version of the > > symbol? > > Yes it is. > I thought it was needed to insist on the existence of a new symbol while the > old one still exists. Just trying to be didactic. > Ah, no its not a mandate (though doing so is an optional aproach, which trades off the need to use MAP_STATIC_SYMBOL for the maintain a public symbol with the same name). I can include an alternate example of the same exercize that follows that approach, but given our time contraints would rather to that in a follow up patch series Neil