> > maybe we should keep the callback patch until all the remains are gone. > > Why introducing a new API for a temporary solution? > It has always been like that, so the remaining occurences could wait > one more release, isn't it? > > Yes. I guess I am over excited to get rid of my local changes faster :)
- [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic user callback Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic user ... Thomas Monjalon
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic u... Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_panic u... Burakov, Anatoly
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte_pan... Thomas Monjalon
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte... Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: registe... Thomas Monjalon
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: reg... Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: register rte... Burakov, Anatoly
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: registe... Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: reg... Thomas Monjalon
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal:... Arnon Warshavsky
- Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal:... Thomas Monjalon