On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 03:29:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 02/02/2018 17:46, Adrien Mazarguil: > > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile > > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx4/Makefile > > > @@ -33,7 +33,9 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk > > > > > > # Library name. > > > LIB = librte_pmd_mlx4.a > > > -LIB_GLUE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so > > > +LIB_GLUE = $(LIB_GLUE_BASE).$(LIB_GLUE_VERSION) > > > +LIB_GLUE_BASE = librte_pmd_mlx4_glue.so > > > +LIB_GLUE_VERSION = 18.02.1 > > > > You should use the version number of the release, i.e. 18.02.0 > > Ideally, you should retrieve it from rte_version.h. > > Keep in mind this only needs to be updated when the glue API gets modified, > and this "18.02.1" string may remain unmodified for subsequent DPDK > releases, probably as long as the PMD doesn't use any new rdma-core calls. > > We've already backported this patch to 17.02 and 17.11, both requiring > different sets of Verbs calls and thus a different version, hence the added > "18.02" as a starting point. The last digit may have to be modified possibly > several times between official DPDK releases while work is being done on the > PMD (i.e. per commit). > > In short it's not meant to follow DPDK's public versioning scheme. If you > really think it should, doing so will make things more complex in the > Makefile, which will have to parse rte_version.h. What's your opinion?
What about appending date +%s output to it? It would be stricter and automated. Marcelo
