From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C18AA0597; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 14:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75771C0BF; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 14:35:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EA81C0AE for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 14:35:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFEE5C020B; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Apr 2020 08:35:10 -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=D7uC5d/3I4bDPfeXF0CsuHm6DigTlMQMpg8d6Y1x0Sk=; b=QQOULGO9ql+7 QPEqffXeB51pQerBCvzTFkF5BuIEHBogE7on0zRMuMdEicS3eReXwpPYNKhGcPGD OSsOytYQEMlD6cKaKwwu6y8nZ1tVErqFctfpO/pFvPRkuGlTdwKh868UTTnTWTTB gLnglV1lbQ8f2FZ9+hVAaTbhDTVOp8k= 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=D7uC5d/3I4bDPfeXF0CsuHm6DigTlMQMpg8d6Y1x0 Sk=; b=n9c4MC7MOFZE8Xncre7aPiWcScTb9NrsyORf2yLrKH18LuVUzonUYcSvr eC0zR7/anz0lfzrt6bSH+kWWGZ7K4p7hpdmvxteMgfVnvAIhLmIKcteEqkfArXJH MD8KX3rNHLMCB/tWidQ+qusL5IXGcQaUL2t00TCjdZN8hz4SeCWE/hh7E8vA9M1h MNBwVQUJxRjlREokpzx+9uVa0z+MY5GEXn1sjwztuUNV8LvyjmQakPdC/S5MKxoB VKQj2Ag3DfoTrwiDnxpD/5RI7Sdsmf7yXkUXrGofNb1ej3tZNlFxpjHf/X43HyoW LUSr47eqiiubOAk7ir9tEkgLYeV0g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudejgdehfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth 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 DB3DE328005D; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:35:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Dodji Seketeli Cc: Hemant Agrawal , David Marchand , "Hemant Agrawal (OSS)" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , dev , Neil Horman Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:35:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4279678.LvFx2qVVIh@thomas> In-Reply-To: <86r1wyo1mc.fsf@redhat.com> References: <20200302145829.27808-1-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <86v9mao34d.fsf@redhat.com> <86r1wyo1mc.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/16] NXP DPAAx fixes and enhancements 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" 08/04/2020 09:52, Dodji Seketeli: > Hello Thomas, Hemant, > > Thomas Monjalon writes: > > 07/04/2020 12:25, Hemant Agrawal: > > [...] > > >> [Hemant] I have commented on Neil's series. > >> It needs more changes in existing code. > >> An approach like __rte_experimental will work better. > > > > I guess you mean __rte_internal? > > > > Please Hemant don't wait for someone else filling the gap. > > If __rte_internal is the right approach, please complete and use it. > > Just so that I understand, is __rte_internal an ELF version that the > symbols per_lcore_dpaa2_held_bufs, dpaa2_io_portal and > per_lcore__dpaa2_io should have in the binary? Correct > If that is the case, then it seems to me that the __rte_internal > approach that you are suggesting would be a much better approach that > the one I replied to Hemant about below. Yes I think we all agree, just waiting for the patch to be ready. > I didn't mean to tell Hemant what approach he should take :-) I was just > trying to help him get the syntax of a libabigail suppression > specification right. > > Sorry for the confusion I might have induced. No problem, thanks for the help.