[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] acl: mark deprecated functions

[Panu Matilainen]

On 06/15/2015 07:51 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemming at brocade.com>
>
> To allow for compatiablity with later releases, any functions
> to be removed should be marked as deprecated for one release.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
> index 3a93730..0c32df0 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ enum {
>   int
>   rte_acl_ipv4vlan_add_rules(struct rte_acl_ctx *ctx,
>   	const struct rte_acl_ipv4vlan_rule *rules,
> -	uint32_t num);
> +	uint32_t num) __attribute__((deprecated));
>
>   /**
>    * Analyze set of ipv4vlan rules and build required internal
> @@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ rte_acl_ipv4vlan_add_rules(struct rte_acl_ctx *ctx,
>   int
>   rte_acl_ipv4vlan_build(struct rte_acl_ctx *ctx,
>   	const uint32_t layout[RTE_ACL_IPV4VLAN_NUM],
> -	uint32_t num_categories);
> +	uint32_t num_categories) __attribute__((deprecated));
>
>
>   #ifdef __cplusplus
>

I've no objections to the patch as such, but I think the ABI policy is 
asking all deprecation notices to be added to the "Deprecation Notices" 
section in the policy document itself.

That said, the average developer is MUCH likelier to notice the compiler 
warning from these than a deprecation notice in some "who reads those" 
document :) Perhaps we could generate a list of functions marked for 
removal for the ABI policy document automatically based on the 
deprecated attributes.

	- Panu -