On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:24:23PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:14 PM > > To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org; Shahaf Shuler > > <shah...@mellanox.com>; Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/mlx: version rdma-core glue > > libraries > > > > 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. > > Adding current timestamp or date into a build breaks reproducibility of > builds, so is > generally not recommended.
Good point. > > No opinion on string/version naming here. >
