From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B76234 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 20:40:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.10]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5432308D75 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:40:41 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <51ACE327.30000@iki.fi> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:40:39 +0200 From: Antti Kantee MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@dpdk.org References: <20130530171234.301927271@vyatta.com> <51AC5A99.1050207@6wind.com> <51ACBF95.1030109@iki.fi> <201306031829.02984.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <201306031829.02984.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/7] eal: support different modules 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, 03 Jun 2013 18:40:37 -0000 On 03.06.2013 18:29, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> Is breaking the API a bad thing in this context? IMHO the >> initialization APIs need work before they're general enough and >> perpetually supporting the current ones seems like an unnecessary >> burden. I'm trying to understand the general guidelines of the project. >> >> (and nittily, recycling flag values is fine for static-only libs as long >> as you remove the old macro, but of course removal is the API breakage >> you mentioned) > > Yes, DPDK is a young project but breaking API should be always justified. > In this case it is not mandatory to change it. Ok, I was writing with the premise that Stephen's patch would be accepted.