> -----Original Message----- > From: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 6:37 PM > To: Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; Ananyev, > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > step...@networkplumber.org; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; > dev@dpdk.org > Cc: david.march...@redhat.com; jer...@marvell.com; > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>; > Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Joyce Kong > <joyce.k...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; nd > <n...@arm.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:15 AM > > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; > tho...@monjalon.net; > > Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > > step...@networkplumber.org; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; > dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: david.march...@redhat.com; jer...@marvell.com; > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > > Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Gavin Hu > > <gavin...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Joyce > Kong > > <joyce.k...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; nd > <n...@arm.com> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static > functions > <snip> > > > Is this really a "Fix"? The internal function names were not exported > > > in the .map file, so are not part of public ABI. This is an internal > > > naming improvement (thanks for doing cleanup), but I don't think the > > > Fixes: tags make sense? > > > > > > Also I'm not sure if we want to port this patch back to stable? Changing > > > (internal) function names seems like unnecessary churn, and hence risk > to a > > > stable release, without any benefit? > > OK. > > I will remove these tags in the next version and split the service core > > patches from the original series into a series by itself. > > Cool - good idea to split. > > Perhaps we should focus on getting bugfixes in for the existing code, before > doing cleanup? It would make backports easier if churn is minimal. > > Suggesting patches order (first to last) > 1. bugfixes/things to backport > 2. cleanups > 3. C11 atomic optimizations
That is a good idea. I will follow this order. > > > > Thanks, > > Phil > > Thanks, and I'll get to reading/reviewing your and Honnappa's feedback later > today. > > -H
