From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86F64F9B for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:24:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C606F36C9; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:24:07 -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=nHQA61yMkj7T9cyt6gFtjlqpBKJ3hWV+hPkx+Jv9/y0=; b=nOpG2Qh5TXUY M6jLBQ8uE9ppcoBHcTg/7FTD+CWbd8LAEDF9V846fBHz/urjUJ1UjSVqiJQ9RJnk n3hgdhA5OhAj8oiyomR54h19TcF7Q38ywTRuLzc0zdCTFZNbqJB3cG8cqFQaJfc0 hgFSITD9wmod9YBe8yfOf7wi9YPdWQw= 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=nHQA61yMkj7T9cyt6gFtjlqpBKJ3hWV+hPkx+Jv9/ y0=; b=nFi31potq00s1e1JUdb3HnRG6MVlJOEtsbMpy4WkkIQDkMNjJFVOX7ubS hobHnsVOchNAsmX7ZAWKEKG3YOFbIcUN6BynLzv9iSzasHZ2gdMSAmcJRUY6lK9n WgfLF7AoHDKkhRdq/GV8nVWQbxh3NoUiOwRLdb4wqk1jI20Ge7GzqT93FQY5LF1T ar/OuCOol6exnqyK+dZ1Sc2ZDoxQjLpNVI9N/ju31kIfWBUopTOkOHy1zLA01fMh W0oEAEjHlQG0nTpoqxhS1m62Jp+vBUGK7IUvtpSqaDleTq8E97REE8el1/nMb7V1 KSjjq3cdqqg8xg1UTnFZWSQstb/rQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrhedtgddvjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 974421033F; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:24:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Luca Boccassi Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:24:04 +0100 Message-ID: <6622610.vr3DG7Arz7@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190313112034.GD1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190307115448.54041-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <2333456.BDb5ShVbCQ@xps> <20190313112034.GD1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] build: use version number from config file 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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:24:08 -0000 13/03/2019 12:20, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 07/03/2019 14:35, Bruce Richardson: > > > +# > > > +# Version information completed when this file is processed for a build > > > +# > > > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_YEAR=__YEAR > > > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_MONTH=__MONTH > > > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_MINOR=__MINOR > > > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_SUFFIX=__SUFFIX > > > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_RELEASE=__RELEASE > > [...] > > > -/** > > > - * Patch release number > > > - * 0-15 = release candidates > > > - * 16 = release > > > - */ > > > -#define RTE_VER_RELEASE 0 > > > > So you are removing the special value 16. > > Is it replaced by an empty value? > > > > I think it is an issue for version comparison with RTE_VERSION_NUM() macro. > > The -rc3 must be lower than the final release (which had number 16 > > for this reason). > > > Aha, that explains the reason for the 16 value. I did wonder why we > bothered with it when it wasn't actually used in printing etc. Let me go > back and look into this set again, armed with this new info. [We also need > to document this reason in the code comments for future information] Yes it was not documented, sorry. Thanks for working on it.