02/10/2017 18:25, Hunt, David:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
> On 2/10/2017 4:39 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 02/10/2017 17:06, Hunt, David:
> >> On 2/10/2017 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> +DPDK_17.11 {
> >>>> + global:
> >>>> +
> >>>> + rte_power_acpi_turbo_status;
> >>> Is it really the function you want to expose?
> >>> rte_power_turbo_status seems more generic.
> >> Not really, it was in there for completeness, but users should be able
> >> to keep track of the turbo'd cores, so not really needed.
> >>
> >>> More comments about what is part of the API:
> >>> If you do not want to expose ACPI and VM implementations,
> >>> it should not be part of the rte_* include files.
> >> I'll address the above comments in the next version.
> >
> > You did not address the comment about what is rte_*.h.
> > If you do not want to expose everything, you should move it to
> > another .h file.
> >
> > Files starting with rte_ are included in doxygen API doc.
> > Only rte_power.h is installed.
> > The installed include, the doxygen doc and the map file
> > should all expose the same API consistently.
> >
> > I think a cleanup is needed.
>
> While I agree a cleanup is needed, this small patch is only intended to
> fix the priority issue of the shared library builds, which are broken at
> the moment.
> The initial patch should have had rte_power_turbo_status, not
> rte_power_acpi_turbo_status.
> Rather than moving code around at this stage, I propose having the three
> exposed functions in the map file (with the correct names).
OK, so we need a v3 (v2 has only 2 functions).
> Then, later on, I can do an ABI breakage notification for the next
> release to rename all the other rte*.h files, as some consumers of DPDK
> may be using those directly, at which stage we will be down to just
> exporting the functions in rte_power.h.
> Does that sound OK with you?
OK, thanks
