[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/5] cfgfile: change existing API functions

[Kozak, KubaX]

Hi Thomas,

Yes we can wait to 18.02. I'll prepare v6 patchset without these changes.

Best regards,
Kuba

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 23:27
> To: Kozak, KubaX <kubax.kozak at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Jain, Deepak K
> <deepak.k.jain at intel.com>; Jastrzebski, MichalX K <michalx.k.jastrzebski at intel.com>; Piasecki,
> JacekX <jacekx.piasecki at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/5] cfgfile: change existing API functions
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 19/09/2017 13:07, Kuba Kozak:
> > @@ -409,7 +407,11 @@ rte_cfgfile_section_num_entries(struct
> > rte_cfgfile *cfg,  {
> >  	const struct rte_cfgfile_section *s = _get_section(cfg, sectionname);
> >  	if (s == NULL)
> > +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +#else
> >  		return -1;
> > +#endif
> >  	return s->num_entries;
> >  }
> 
> Why are you using RTE_NEXT_ABI?
> Can you wait 18.02 to make this change?
> 
> Anyway, when breaking the API you need to update tha API section of the release notes.
> 
> > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ int
> > rte_cfgfile_section_num_entries_by_index(struct rte_cfgfile *cfg,
> >  * @param max_entries
> >  *   Maximum number of section entries to be stored in entries array
> >  * @return
> > -*   Number of entries populated on success, -1 otherwise
> > +*   Number of entries populated on success, -EINVAL otherwise
> >  */
> 
> This documentation become wrong if RTE_NEXT_ABI is disabled.