On 06/17/2015 03:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:37:32 +0000
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
>
>> 2015-06-16 16:05, Stephen Hemminger:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:52:16 +0100
>>> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemming at brocade.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> These were deprecated in 2.0 so remove them from 2.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring.c | 55
>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>> drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring_version.map | 4 +--
>>>>> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>> [..snip..]
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring_version.map
>>>>> b/drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring_version.map
>>>>> index 8ad107d..5ee55d9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring_version.map
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ring/rte_eth_ring_version.map
>>>>> @@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
>>>>> -DPDK_2.0 {
>>>>> +DPDK_2.1 {
>>>>> global:
>>>>>
>>>>> rte_eth_from_rings;
>>>>> - rte_eth_ring_pair_attach;
>>>>> - rte_eth_ring_pair_create;
>>>>>
>>>>> local: *;
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> [ABI newbie question] Is this how deprecating a fn is done? We no longer
>>>> have any DPDK_2.0
>>>> version listings in the .map file?
>>>
>>> Notice the version # changed as well, so linker will generate a new version.
>>> The function was marked deprecated in last version.
>>
>> What happens if you load the 2.1 lib with an app built for 2.0?
>> Shouldn't we keep the DPDK_2.0 block?
>
> What happens is that build process makes a new version of DPDK package
> with a new version number. This version can co-exist on same system with
> old library (depends on library packaging).
> Old library will have old functions, and old application will
> use old library. New applications will be have new so version and get the
> new library.
>
>
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/475/how-do-so-shared-object-numbers-work
>
> If we didn't do this, nothing could ever really be removed!
Yes, soname bump is required when symbols are removed.
However that doesn't change the version the remaining symbols were
introduced, eg rte_eth_from_rings() in this case, so AIUI you should
leave the DPDK_2.0 {} block version alone. If new symbols get added in
2.1 then a new DPDK_2.1 block needs to be added for those.
- Panu -
