[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions

[Phil Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 6:37 PM
> To: Phil Yang <Phil.Yang at arm.com>; thomas at monjalon.net; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>;
> stephen at networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com;
> dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>;
> Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com>; Joyce Kong
> <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org; nd
> <nd at arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Yang <Phil.Yang at arm.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:15 AM
> > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>;
> thomas at monjalon.net;
> > Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>;
> > stephen at networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com;
> dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> > Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Gavin Hu
> > <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com>; Joyce
> Kong
> > <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org; nd
> <nd at arm.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static
> functions
> <snip>
> > > Is this really a "Fix"? The internal function names were not exported
> > > in the .map file, so are not part of public ABI. This is an internal
> > > naming improvement (thanks for doing cleanup), but I don't think the
> > > Fixes: tags make sense?
> > >
> > > Also I'm not sure if we want to port this patch back to stable? Changing
> > > (internal) function names seems like unnecessary churn, and hence risk
> to a
> > > stable release, without any benefit?
> > OK.
> > I will remove these tags in the next version and split the service core
> > patches from the original series into a series by itself.
> 
> Cool - good idea to split.
> 
> Perhaps we should focus on getting bugfixes in for the existing code, before
> doing cleanup? It would make backports easier if churn is minimal.
> 
> Suggesting patches order (first to last)
> 1. bugfixes/things to backport
> 2. cleanups
> 3. C11 atomic optimizations

That is a good idea. I will follow this order.

> 
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> 
> Thanks, and I'll get to reading/reviewing your and Honnappa's feedback later
> today.
> 
> -H