> On Dec 8, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Following previous discussions, I would like to gather requirements for > v2, currently we have: > > 1. Introduction of new typedefs. > 2. Modification of network headers. > 3. Modification of rte_*_to_*() functions. > > Point 1. seems not to be an issue, everyone seems to agree on the fact > having those types could help to document some parts of the code.
I never stated these new types were useful in any way, I still believe documentation of the code is the better solution then forcing yet another restriction in submitting patches. > > Point 2. does not cause any ABI change as it is only a documentation > commit, not sure if anyone disagrees about this. I guess no ABI change is done, but I feel it should be as the developer now need to adjust his to reflex these new type even if the compiler does not complain. > > Point 3. documentation commit most people are uncomfortable with. Not sure what this one is stating, but I whole heartily believe documentation of the code is the best way forward. The main reasons are: - We do not need to add yet another type to DPDK to make the patch process even more restrictive. - The new types do not add any type of checking for the compiler and the developer can still get it wrong. - If any common code used in other platform (say Linux kernel driver) we have to include these new types in that environment. - Documentation is the best solution IMO to resolve these types of issues and it does not require any new types or code changes in DPDK or developers code. Sorry, I strongly disagree with this patch in any form expect documentation changes. > I propose to drop it from v2. > > Any objection to this plan? > > -- > Nélio Laranjeiro > 6WIND Regards, Keith
