On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:29:02 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 03/06/2013 18:08, Antti Kantee : > > On 03.06.2013 10:58, Damien Millescamps wrote: > > >> -/** Device needs igb_uio kernel module */ > > >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO 0x0001 > > >> > > >> /** Device driver must be registered several times until failure */ > > >> > > >> -#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0002 > > >> +#define RTE_PCI_DRV_MULTIPLE 0x0001 > > > > > > You are breaking a public API here, and I don't see any technical reason > > > to do so. The RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IGB_UIO flag could be deprecated, but > > > there is no way its value could be recycled into an already existing > > > flag. > > > > Is breaking the API a bad thing in this context? IMHO the > > initialization APIs need work before they're general enough and > > perpetually supporting the current ones seems like an unnecessary > > burden. I'm trying to understand the general guidelines of the project. > > > > (and nittily, recycling flag values is fine for static-only libs as long > > as you remove the old macro, but of course removal is the API breakage > > you mentioned) > > Yes, DPDK is a young project but breaking API should be always justified. > In this case it is not mandatory to change it. > This is a source project, there is no fixed ABI.
