From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22A44CA1 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:23:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id d13so3272820itf.0 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 05:23:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qwilt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MxBTA0jjQgLCnZWbq+JUlE3MKmMy6/pNrj9WXZ/RpgA=; b=VJyyEAZG1fPiQdsE0s64HefrD7O9BCaVUl+re0JQ2L7YP/At6RUvu4WwTBhcpF2Ai9 Hw63ra5CZfS43SxY1bhq4r1UimLLtauVdle3lIsCoZKmtqXzmvw7KVgZcGWt+JZMMkim UqVWgsxrj+3J7oqdYbQz3IVEc4YruqPoMW7C2om/hRR1vC13MTPF7x7YhABGh4ISrM7P 1h6XwbzM6XbfUo5ld3SBZCnifaspK1pMDS5/f4M46t9Tmr+bdRRpOXDyGsmYeRTibp+l 0jS63OKZJbi8plTsijUND1tzeqRNY0T29t5R/QRA5gWrYAoGmYwWm8pQgnCUOMYXd2R6 QZUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MxBTA0jjQgLCnZWbq+JUlE3MKmMy6/pNrj9WXZ/RpgA=; b=EeX89A9jLGmCtcRtDCWzzsQ+tJSbNwtX1xOw0B9CqmA7GoDgvEx1q97RINU/sQqOw1 M6DGqzmku2tDnJjAwdshwu0nPNWyRAwZt2QRMY4BeS9LVfy4jCGT9mHtlM7KjaXlIgBH 7NY9gb6RlM/Sksz5E0co6r3/rV8Yx6dk8UDWftkAmfcRWRYvVYh/UjPOAhBd6cqAOvd2 CnyKkuAcy4ILOUnPIWTyx/EuaOMANS9qUKhTzgVyUEXDcPa/+pLhoq7VwzR6a31Uq5pi 7FCWIoI80f8G63AafdaNo2ywyVaGcy8Qbu8mboRo0vX2FI9aNV6nIxqs4uYpPoCi3bTO lZaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FCxxdCD55AXzYWW8L8f1HAkuwIMuqd41Y2vZBvUoyYlo5p0i6A JM0MqquvltUH1meDOVOQ1MqYnQyeK89XvlyMQ8OcEA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvfYImiLGa3lmeZTEUtLDIww57JgdQgpOAHC/7nvJTeFik/Px1wzVNxa5cTnPIppZJF75mTgn3M4kHM2BGBsMY= X-Received: by 10.36.181.81 with SMTP id j17mr22763127iti.22.1520429015284; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 05:23:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.52.20 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 05:23:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <81ecbc4a-0200-3b42-8da1-fe87e8c14c04@intel.com> References: <1520360928-9375-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <304114136.g7uiPYdxRp@xps> <4197355.YAsZy1EAlL@xps> <81ecbc4a-0200-3b42-8da1-fe87e8c14c04@intel.com> From: Arnon Warshavsky Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:23:34 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic user callback 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, 07 Mar 2018 13:23:36 -0000 > > Can we add a compile warning for adding new rte_panic's into code? It's a > nice tool while debugging, but it probably shouldn't be in any new > production code. > I thought about renaming the current function and calls to something like deprecated_rte_panic() , and keep the old API with __rte_deprecated. Is this kind of API break acceptable?