Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] af_packet: make the device detachable

["Wojciech Żmuda" <woz@semihalf.com>]

Hi Panu,

>I think its okay to remove without going through the deprecation process.
> just drop the accidentally exported symbol from the 2.0 definition.
Well, this is what I've done so far. I'm going to post v4 patch
modifying release_16_04.rst  instead of release_2_3.rst, then. Thank
you for sharing your opinion on this topic.

Wojtek

2016-03-01 10:43 GMT+01:00 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>:
> On 02/29/2016 08:22 PM, Wojciech Żmuda wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bernard,
>>
>>> Does making   rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit local result in an ABI breakage?
>>
>> If someone uses it in their app, they'll be forced to change it.
>> However, as this function is not intentionally public and there is API
>> to create devices that finally calls rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit(), I'm
>> not sure if any special caution is needed here.
>
>
> Yeah this is a bit of a gray area. Strictly speaking it certainly is an ABI
> break, but given that the function is documented as internal-only and
> there's a proper, public way to create the device, there's no good excuse
> for anybody to be using it. I think its okay to remove without going through
> the deprecation process.
>
>>
>>> Should the DPDK_2.0 structure be kept and a DPDK_2.3 structure added?
>>
>> Should it be just `DPDK_2.3 { local: *} DPDK_2.0`? Doesn't inheritance
>> of DPDK_2.0 make the symbol also global in 2.3?
>
>
> Since there are no symbols being exported I dont see any point in changing
> the version, just drop the accidentally exported symbol from the 2.0
> definition.
>
>         - Panu -
>
>
>>> A deprecation notice may need to be added to the
>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst  file.
>>
>> As far as I understand, deprecation.rst is used to announce something
>> will be removed in the future release. Changes already done should be
>> moved from deprecation.rst to the release's .rst file. At least, this
>> is what I see in commit logs. If this change should be announced in
>> deprecation.rst, does this mean there should be another patch in the
>> future (after 2.3 release?) making this function static? And that
>> future patch will add DPDK_2.3 structure in the map file?
>>
>> Thank you for your time,
>> Wojtek
>>
>