[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: return true or false from lcore role check function

[Carrillo, Erik G]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 5:17 PM
> To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>;
> pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com; Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haaren at 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:aconole at redhat.com]
> > >
> > > Hi Erik,
> > >
> > > Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo at 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.carrillo at 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?