On 11/01/19 5:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 9:58 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>> Hello Ferruh,
>>
>> Replying on behalf of Hemant...
>>
>> On 08/01/19 7:40 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2018 6:23 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>>>> From: Pankaj Chauhan <pankaj.chau...@nxp.com>
[...]
>>>> +DPDK_19.02 {
>>>> + global:
>>>> +
>>>> + rte_fslmc_vfio_mem_dmamap;
>>>
>>> Is this need to be an API? Who is the consumer of this API, I don't see
>>> anyone
>>> calls this function?
>>>
>>
>> This API (internal to FSLMC) was added for one of NXP's internal
>> software stack over DPDK. As this is an internal API, I don't think it
>> would pollute the outer namespace - isn't it? And, I think its consumers
>> won't necessarily be within DPDK stack.
>>
>> Or, if this is conflicting case, I will remove this patch (it is
>> independent) and send again. Let me know your reservation.
>
> API consumers doesn't have to be in DPDK but than it is not an internal API.
>
> And for API we recently decided to have an implementation for new APIs, it can
> be unit test, sample application, or app like testpmd, so that we can detect
> when it is broken.
>
> Perhaps it can be good idea to separate patch, as you suggested, to not block
> the rest of the patchset.
>
Oops, I think I sent my series just about the time you wrote this.
I will send it again (v3) without the last patch. I am OK with that API
not making it in right now.
