Message ID | 1571820718-7021-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7D11BFD2; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:52:14 +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 5A7011BFD1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:52:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571820732; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vkRj0YE0KOhbTzRLE9InHiw5suNiGk1o1k+UzFxh4ls=; b=bvkHa3nC8qgSH8NJKjhmlYd8AdkbvfLWTDSVJiZlW/7wjlni+8o2zQxk6+5JC5ceFF+4fj AtCVTX9Tx+QJXMKnnpxFDmOPSCAaUZNXKQg31f5X4ObS93q9QPqezniXe1kz6mQuB6l2IT js+C4QIw+D03X+SmznzWD0mQ5OM1Dgs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-199-t-ZQDoWUPGe0Nl89wDzB9Q-1; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:52:09 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B89F1800D6B; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dmarchan.remote.csb (ovpn-204-129.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.129]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122A619C70; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:52:06 +0000 (UTC) From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:51:55 +0200 Message-Id: <1571820718-7021-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-MC-Unique: t-ZQDoWUPGe0Nl89wDzB9Q-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] net definitions fixes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Series | net definitions fixes | |
Message
David Marchand
Oct. 23, 2019, 8:51 a.m. UTC
Small patchset with fixes after inspecting the librte_net. I copied stable@dpdk.org in the 2nd patch for information only.
Comments
On 10/23/2019 9:51 AM, David Marchand wrote: > Small patchset with fixes after inspecting the librte_net. > I copied stable@dpdk.org in the 2nd patch for information only. > Overall lgtm. And this release seems the one to make these changes, and we already break the API for net library on this release BUT should we update the ABIVER for net library?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:12 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote: > > On 10/23/2019 9:51 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > Small patchset with fixes after inspecting the librte_net. > > I copied stable@dpdk.org in the 2nd patch for information only. > > > > Overall lgtm. And this release seems the one to make these changes, and we > already break the API for net library on this release BUT should we update the > ABIVER for net library? This patchset breaks API by renaming structures/defines and remove some constant defines. ABI should be the same ?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:12 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/23/2019 9:51 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > > Small patchset with fixes after inspecting the librte_net. > > > I copied stable@dpdk.org in the 2nd patch for information only. > > > > > > > Overall lgtm. And this release seems the one to make these changes, and we > > already break the API for net library on this release BUT should we update the > > ABIVER for net library? > > This patchset breaks API by renaming structures/defines and remove > some constant defines. > ABI should be the same ? But I suppose adding some words in the release notes can't be wrong.
On 10/23/2019 2:00 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM David Marchand > <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:12 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/23/2019 9:51 AM, David Marchand wrote: >>>> Small patchset with fixes after inspecting the librte_net. >>>> I copied stable@dpdk.org in the 2nd patch for information only. >>>> >>> >>> Overall lgtm. And this release seems the one to make these changes, and we >>> already break the API for net library on this release BUT should we update the >>> ABIVER for net library? >> >> This patchset breaks API by renaming structures/defines and remove >> some constant defines. >> ABI should be the same ? > > But I suppose adding some words in the release notes can't be wrong. > You are right, there is not point on increasing ABIVER since only API is changing, +1 to document change in release notes. (also for previous rte_esp change) Thanks,