[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 00/24] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

[Shreyansh Jain]

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:53 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; viktorin at rehivetech.com; David Marchand
> <david.marchand at 6wind.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 00/24] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device
> generalization
> 
> On 10/17/2016 6:29 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 7:13 PM
> >> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> >> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; viktorin at rehivetech.com; David Marchand
> >> <david.marchand at 6wind.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 00/24] Introducing
> rte_driver/rte_device
> >> generalization
> >>
> >> On 10/5/2016 12:57 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> >>> Hi Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 04 October 2016 01:12 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 2016-10-04 12:21, Shreyansh Jain:
> >>>>> Hi Thomas,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Monday 03 October 2016 07:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>>> Applied, thanks everybody for the great (re)work!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It can be merged with changes for:
> >>>>>   - drv_name
> >>>>>   - EAL_ before _REGISTER_ macros
> >>>>>   - eth_driver => rte_driver naming
> >>>>
> >>>> Good.
> >>>> Could you make it this week, please?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Certainly. At least some of those I can send within this week :)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I caught while running ABI validation script today, I think this patch
> >> should increase LIBABIVER of:
> >> - lib/librte_cryptodev
> >> - lib/librte_eal
> >> - lib/librte_ether
> >
> > Should I be referring to [1] for understanding how/when to change the
> LIBABIVER?
> >
> > [1] http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.html
> 
> Yes, this is the document.
> 
> Briefly, if library becomes incompatible with existing applications,
> LIBABIVER needs to be increased to indicate this.
> 
> Increasing LIBABIVER changes dynamic library name and so_name, and this
> cause existing application do not work with this new library. Not
> increasing the LIBABIVER, app may start running but can have segfault or
> can generate wrong values. So increasing LIBABIVER is to inform user and
> prevent surprises.

Thanks for explanation. I understand.
I will send across another patch for this.

-
Shreyansh