17/05/2013 11:12, Olivier MATZ :
> > @@ -75,7 +87,8 @@ rte_version(void) {
> >
> > return RTE_VER_PREFIX" "
> >
> > RTE_STR(RTE_VER_MAJOR)"."
> > RTE_STR(RTE_VER_MINOR)"."
> >
> > - RTE_STR(RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL);
> > + RTE_STR(RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL)"r"
> > + RTE_STR(RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE);
> >
> > }
>
> In this patch, do you think it could be useful to add
> a #ifdef RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE ? The idea is to return
> "1.2.3" if there is no patch release and "1.2.3r4" in
> the dpdk.org case. As a result this patch would be integrable
> in Intel DPDK mainline.
This patch introduce RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE so #ifdef RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE is
always true. I don't see why a commercial version of the DPDK would like to
apply part of this patch.
--
Thomas
