On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:43:37AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: > My only concern is whether this change would be considered ABI > breaking. I wouldn't think so, since it doesn't seem as though an > application would want to call this explicitly (and is spelled out as > such), but I can't be sure that it isn't already included in the > standard application API, and therefore needs to go through the change > process.
I didn't want to change the original behavior more than needed. I think another patch would be necessary to change the whole EAL initialization because there's a bunch of rte_panic() there which aren't friendly with callers either. -- fbl
