> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 5:17 PM > To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>; > pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com; Van Haaren, Harry > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: return true or false from lcore role > check function > > 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.
Ok, thanks Thomas - will do. Should I mark the above patch as "deferred" for the time being?
