On 9/26/2017 8:01 AM, Yang, Zhiyong wrote: > 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
There is a patch to add missing ones [1], I think it would be better to add them with a separate patch. But I missed the "librte_pmd_vhost" one, I will send a new version soon. Also failsafe don't have any PMD specific API, no need to add it. [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/28598/ > > 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... >> >> <...>
