12/01/2018 00:09, Carrillo, Erik G: > Hi Aaron, > > From: Aaron Conole [mailto:acon...@redhat.com] > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> writes: > > > > > Update rte_lcore_has_role() so that it returns true/false instead of > > > success/failure. > > > > > > Fixes: 78666372fa2b ("eal: add function to check lcore role") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > > I believe this breaks the published abi - Success is now 'true', and > > failure is > > 'false'; previously success would be 0 == false. You'll need to invert > > the test, > > or note that the abi is breaking (since semantically any caller will need to > > invert the test). > > Good point. Though it seems like an API change rather than an ABI change to > me, would it still be handled the same way in terms of notice? Also, the > ABI policy states, "ABI breakage due to changes such as reorganizing public > structure fields for aesthetic or readability purposes should be avoided." > Perhaps I should go with an alternate patch that fixes the caller.
Most of the times, an API change is an ABI change. Please make a deprecation notice.
