Flavio Leitner <fbl at sysclose.org> writes: > 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.
Okay makes sense. Acked-by: Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>
