eal: resort symbols in EXPERIMENTAL section
Checks
Commit Message
The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
order but running sort showed several mistakes.
This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
Purely for humans.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
---
lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 36 +++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Comments
06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
>
> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> Purely for humans.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
I would prefer to leave it as is.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> > The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> > order but running sort showed several mistakes.
> >
> > This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> > Purely for humans.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>
> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>
>
If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
per versions that introduced them ;-).
Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
>> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
>>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
>>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
>>>
>>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
>>> Purely for humans.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>>
>> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
>> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>>
>>
> If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
> per versions that introduced them ;-).
> Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
>
Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> >>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> >>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
> >>>
> >>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> >>> Purely for humans.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >>
> >> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
> >> I would prefer to leave it as is.
> >>
> >>
> > If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
> > per versions that introduced them ;-).
> > Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable
> ABI.
> >
>
> Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
>
Here is what it looks like:
https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/cab0d75ea6bdc7782566d7aad6718b9f5fa784f7
Comments?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:23 PM David Marchand
<david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
>> >>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
>> >>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
>> >>>
>> >>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
>> >>> Purely for humans.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> >>
>> >> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
>> >> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
>> > per versions that introduced them ;-).
>> > Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
>> >
>>
>> Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
>
>
> Here is what it looks like:
> https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/cab0d75ea6bdc7782566d7aad6718b9f5fa784f7
Sent the patch rebased on master.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/57172/
@@ -277,6 +277,14 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
rte_class_unregister;
rte_ctrl_thread_create;
rte_delay_us_sleep;
+ rte_devargs_add;
+ rte_devargs_dump;
+ rte_devargs_insert;
+ rte_devargs_next;
+ rte_devargs_parse;
+ rte_devargs_parsef;
+ rte_devargs_remove;
+ rte_devargs_type_count;
rte_dev_dma_map;
rte_dev_dma_unmap;
rte_dev_event_callback_process;
@@ -289,14 +297,6 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
rte_dev_is_probed;
rte_dev_iterator_init;
rte_dev_iterator_next;
- rte_devargs_add;
- rte_devargs_dump;
- rte_devargs_insert;
- rte_devargs_next;
- rte_devargs_parse;
- rte_devargs_parsef;
- rte_devargs_remove;
- rte_devargs_type_count;
rte_eal_cleanup;
rte_extmem_attach;
rte_extmem_detach;
@@ -306,19 +306,19 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
rte_fbarray_destroy;
rte_fbarray_detach;
rte_fbarray_dump_metadata;
- rte_fbarray_find_idx;
rte_fbarray_find_biggest_free;
rte_fbarray_find_biggest_used;
+ rte_fbarray_find_contig_free;
+ rte_fbarray_find_contig_used;
+ rte_fbarray_find_idx;
rte_fbarray_find_next_free;
- rte_fbarray_find_next_used;
rte_fbarray_find_next_n_free;
rte_fbarray_find_next_n_used;
+ rte_fbarray_find_next_used;
rte_fbarray_find_prev_free;
- rte_fbarray_find_prev_used;
rte_fbarray_find_prev_n_free;
rte_fbarray_find_prev_n_used;
- rte_fbarray_find_contig_free;
- rte_fbarray_find_contig_used;
+ rte_fbarray_find_prev_used;
rte_fbarray_find_rev_biggest_free;
rte_fbarray_find_rev_biggest_used;
rte_fbarray_find_rev_contig_free;
@@ -346,24 +346,24 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
rte_mem_event_callback_register;
rte_mem_event_callback_unregister;
rte_mem_iova2virt;
- rte_mem_set_dma_mask;
- rte_mem_virt2memseg;
- rte_mem_virt2memseg_list;
rte_memseg_contig_walk;
rte_memseg_contig_walk_thread_unsafe;
rte_memseg_get_fd;
rte_memseg_get_fd_offset;
- rte_memseg_get_fd_thread_unsafe;
rte_memseg_get_fd_offset_thread_unsafe;
+ rte_memseg_get_fd_thread_unsafe;
rte_memseg_list_walk;
rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe;
rte_memseg_walk;
rte_memseg_walk_thread_unsafe;
+ rte_mem_set_dma_mask;
+ rte_mem_virt2memseg;
+ rte_mem_virt2memseg_list;
rte_mp_action_register;
rte_mp_action_unregister;
rte_mp_reply;
- rte_mp_request_sync;
rte_mp_request_async;
+ rte_mp_request_sync;
rte_mp_sendmsg;
rte_option_register;
rte_realloc_socket;