From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99105A0524; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4081616B8; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6668A1616B1 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:21:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618381291; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NSYNbeY8RZzeXmdewjHlUsAcNKSE9Wzf/8rlRm+oaFo=; b=iOW6sqka1JMmF2KQGc7cN9Ldw735bnDJxvULWq4mhgUN4MeygYRT2rvRnkUstJtwEgssoK uPvjx8TLNM2+3lBgJtKQB/bmvpQmDeSs6nA/Gei/udhLzEUnNdgfgi3ha7c2L5Auchz8j5 X2tL9hmtgGX5koIYlCVnrjX8BM41nK8= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-130-0dCE-P7jPWSwwWhq5vB7kg-1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 02:21:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0dCE-P7jPWSwwWhq5vB7kg-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id v16-20020a1fac100000b02901ce81711b6aso270596vke.1 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 23:21:28 -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=NSYNbeY8RZzeXmdewjHlUsAcNKSE9Wzf/8rlRm+oaFo=; b=hgGtJQAQRUiSOLHmXZhhsD0M85qWvlkvmQWPlyi/2C144pymoi2T4txStKAbXK2mjW 2SbccVyb0rPH4N4lJ7ibCgIjkLLS6degYCscxX5jTLSLh01656Hu7cXUS9VKzVoFCISm ddHe8Vwfb89W73Cos6I5Tun+Gdft98YJT7SAyvW6k/0sIKdkM+IhWzJ7RBSbSNUyBjP1 NYKkAE3gkGBLxyYLBeQ3j2g1yFJZv2684q3Q354yVhknh9xhGQxZTE0KO62KErk6gaqr DUMMTMnbXzan4w7UqEEm7JnxtSmXI8e8TKLeNuBBgUmoH5Ge5KFZoqt5LSNl5M0uOb2n mWvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531AfLU1YnVhKnI5pdx0a9EFVeXiO+ia344WgzK01zd9BMoVkDES L68RMedejAWcqMOz/pwEosbhErT0NcJ6yGKEwnzPJWDg0HosAkqgrr0wciiS1OE2wvpvkDCAsjJ biOLi9aZ4csW8QVOZYhk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:efd4:: with SMTP id s20mr24627117vsp.27.1618381287899; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 23:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSizBAEaeCSTRgsahf3SGuEBTFjpNzkiy2Lx3/I3mqBc+FWjxvEXD1zMK2ORWJPgQbzrMWCHGlkTQhwej6ryk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:efd4:: with SMTP id s20mr24627109vsp.27.1618381287767; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 23:21:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1615277716-64404-1-git-send-email-haifeil@nvidia.com> <1617775762-171898-1-git-send-email-haifeil@nvidia.com> <1617775762-171898-4-git-send-email-haifeil@nvidia.com> <4b4fff72-1f94-830f-71d5-adf60697a57d@ashroe.eu> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:21:16 +0200 Message-ID: To: Haifei Luo Cc: "Kinsella, Ray" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Ori Kam , Slava Ovsiienko , Raslan Darawsheh , "Xueming(Steven) Li" , Matan Azrad , Shahaf Shuler , Neil Horman , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Thomas Monjalon Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] common/mlx5: add mlx5 APIs for single flow dump feature X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:40 AM Haifei Luo wrote: > > HI David, > In current release, is the exports file necessary? I will keep the modification if yes. Thank you. > > drivers/common/mlx5/rte_common_mlx5_exports.def It depends on the tree against which you send your patches. If this subtree (like next-net, or next-net-mlx) has been rebased on 56ea803e87 - build: remove Windows export symbol list (6 days ago) Then no .def file is needed. Else, you should keep this .def update. In any case, this is easy to fix for maintainers who take the patch, since in your case, the .def update will trigger a conflict which can be just dropped. -- David Marchand