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 DAA921B142 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:25:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-405a-a193-cb97-58ba-1c15.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:405a:a193:cb97:58ba:1c15] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1gZERE-00062O-Ab; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:25:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:25:00 -0500 From: Neil Horman To: David Marchand Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, "Yigit, Ferruh" , dev@dpdk.org, Timothy Redaelli , adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com Message-ID: <20181218122500.GB2078@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <20181203164724.GA12316@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20181204151457.GA31778@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20181205122124.GA6752@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Marking symbols as experimental in the headers only 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: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:25:50 -0000 On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:41:34AM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:22 PM David Marchand > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:23 PM Neil Horman wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:48:22PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:16 PM Neil Horman > >> wrote: > >> > > If you would like to make this adjustment, I'm fine with it, though be > >> > > aware, > >> > > you will likely need to make some adjustments to the > >> > > check-experimental-syms > >> > > script to account for this > >> > > > >> > > >> > I am not sure I see what you mean on check-experimental-syms.sh. > >> > I would only do a s/definition/declaration/ in the error message. > >> > Do you have something else in mind ? > >> All I was saying was that if you wanted to document the policy change, > >> you might > >> need to check that script as its a reflection of that policy, and I > >> couldn't > >> recall if it was grepping through .c and .h files (which might imply it > >> needs to > >> change to reflect this policy). I just looked however, and its checking > >> object > >> files, so you should be ok. > >> > > > > Yes, thanks for the confirmation. > > > > I have given it some more thought and did not send my patch that removes > all __rte_experimental from the definitions sites. > The real issue in the end is that the __rte_experimental in headers is the > most important thing and can be missed during reviews. > But I found no easy way to detect this. > > Do you have any idea ? > The most direct way is to add a regular expression search to the script that checks the object files. That would be some tricky grep/awk magic, but it should be possible Neil > > -- > David Marchand