Hi Ferruh, Thomas, > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ LIB = librte_pmd_af_packet.a > > > > EXPORT_MAP := rte_pmd_af_packet_version.map > > > > -LIBABIVER := 1 > > +LIBABIVER := 2 > > I have just recognized this one. This shouldn't be updated. Only LIABIVER of > the > libraries that their API modified should be updated. > > The release notes "Shared Library Versions" updates and Makefile LIBABIVER > updates should be compatible. I mean either both needs to be updated or both > not updated. >
Ok. I will cleanup the unnecessary updates. Here are the list I will update . - librte_bitratestats.so.1 + librte_bitratestats.so.2 - librte_ethdev.so.7 + librte_ethdev.so.8 - librte_pdump.so.1 + librte_pdump.so.2 - librte_pmd_bond.so.1 + librte_pmd_bnxt.so.2 + librte_pmd_bond.so.2 + librte_pmd_failsafe.so.2 + librte_pmd_i40e.so.2 + librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.2 + librte_pmd_vhost.so.2 Among them, the following libs are added newly. + librte_pmd_bnxt.so.2 + librte_pmd_failsafe.so.2 + librte_pmd_i40e.so.2 + librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.2 + librte_pmd_vhost.so.2 One LIBABIVER need to be fixed. Could you apply your patch http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/28738/ in the main tree firstly? I hope the patchset can be merged into main tree. How do you think about it? > There is no way to split this patch more without breaking build right? Yes. it is too hard to split it. thanks Zhiyong > It would be possible to do it if port_t used, but that has been decided not > to... > > <...>
