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 33A7AA034F; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:42:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9B31D904; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:42:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3741D900 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:42:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588768948; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3tEAvJHIYplhbkHb4elIU9XqsFBGQbXQrQ1PWLXb9/c=; b=ZFNeb1YJGVUUreqk1UvU2Zcb70a17T+uK/AvIFHPNjKQhdCOnVXmId5CT16A9D6KY2cURh jYE766JzIeJQ4esyNvvyz5lvsvyhi+ktFkO2xOJ7tishvgTY6PT0S/8TIcJy3Ykh9YE8C+ oPx9D8mhGKTdCfgWl4zCUMeXJ8rmjco= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-345-2l3x7iYNPL-QNUyXx2DACA-1; Wed, 06 May 2020 08:42:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2l3x7iYNPL-QNUyXx2DACA-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id j206so514226vke.11 for ; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lHESWLgIUXj0OWvKGRFzvvsTujoSvEGmk+5B2C0nexk=; b=IxC/eETU97fS/5SWoqh7iS++jcglIiGZFKJzqOlU5vJ0BLhWI8QIkFyjueZPCHi56q YbuRJTyHJ5YabZbV3AdCV343mqtuSfrFwTDCL7XjCVCfH1dPQqRfUDkVwKBTmcE/vcGb srS5dZwvUN8pFSF3+dpNexx8mEGGtsMQBHcmHWTVks3csPYedVDSegxev9GdObhm8N9e qAjMi4JG6EgLUM5Ssp5x/xPvkSGeUmTufwSMv+PhkPG//BRchgsfNWSwVOryZocWJona nsKSIluD4dIqmYJzRcl54v0vMnbn+xE615rEVAB+J1mBbtVgQyFGF3sHEaQYcP4SGvpF qnxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubcGrB7HksiSB5OgkpLaKoqnMsy/vJaod56JFL7KptNplluOOhA JvG4/mKvpBFEir1jku1849wAVComscebIjJZOyah8QgBydHoVqEEhqXSEgzaihzsxRSxVfEONuB DvEb9Vk9ASiboPZ15BkU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:4d:: with SMTP id k13mr7076955vsp.198.1588768946964; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIqz66s1YQHoU2i31FJzad8zsD+c5d52FejFJ/zw9JyI+Geub4IQdhAvRJbtUKPTGJLvSfvhIHWtfpf0P0ffTQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:4d:: with SMTP id k13mr7076941vsp.198.1588768946670; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200505112057.20901-1-ophirmu@mellanox.com> <8275970.VV5PYv0bhD@thomas> In-Reply-To: <8275970.VV5PYv0bhD@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 14:42:15 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ray Kinsella , Ophir Munk , dev , Raslan Darawsheh , Matan Azrad , Neil Horman X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] devtools: create internal ignore file for libabigail 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" On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:27 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 05/05/2020 16:53, David Marchand: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:21 PM Ophir Munk wrote: > > > +; These functions were moved from stable to internal. > > > +; This is a temporary exception till DPDK 20.11. > > > > This is not until 20.11 if we merge this patch now. > > It is only when comparing 20.02 to 20.05. > > After this, symbols will be marked INTERNAL and will be skipped by the > > generic rule, so we can remove this exception in 20.08-rc0. > > I think we need to keep this rule until 20.11, > because we want to ignore symbols which were in 19.11 and 20.02, > and removed (as internal) in 20.05. Those symbols were exported in 20.02. Before this, they were internal to mlx5 net driver. > > If we remove this rule in 20.08, and comparing with 19.11, > the tool will complain about removed symbols, isn't it? If we remove the rule in 20.08 and compare to _20.02_ then yes, we would get an issue. I was only thinking of comparing 20.08 with 20.05. We can keep this until 20.11 if you think it is safer. --=20 David Marchand